In this daf, we are continuing our deep dive into the sugya of nullifying a get (bittul haget) and the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. We are looking at a case where a husband appoints a group of ten people to write and deliver a get to his wife, and then wants to nullify the agency. The Gemara explores whether nullifying the agency of some of these agents affects the rest of the group, and what the underlying reasoning is for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's strict view.
We will also learn about a fascinating question raised by the Sages regarding a husband who tells a group, "All of you write the get." The Gemara brings a baraita to try to resolve whether Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's reasoning is based on the concern that some agents won't know about the nullification, or if it is a fundamental rule that a matter established in front of ten people requires ten people to revoke it. We will see how Rav Ashi and other Amoraim analyze these cases to bring us to a clear halachic understanding.
לֹא בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ;
the agency is not invalidated in its entirety by the nullification of some of the agents;
וְאִי אָזְלִי הָנָךְ כָּתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי – לִיכְתְּבוּ וְלִיתְּבוּ;
and if those other agents whose agency was not nullified go, write, and give the get, let them write and give it, and we do not worry about it.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ;
But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that testimony that was invalidated in part of it is invalidated in its entirety, and the same applies to agency;
וְהָנָךְ לָא יָדְעִי, וְאָזְלִי וְכָתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי;
and those other agents do not know that the husband nullified the agency of their peers, and they might go and write and give the get,
וְשָׁרוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא.
and thereby mistakenly permit a married woman to the world.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ לֹא בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ;
And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that testimony that was invalidated in part of it is not invalidated in its entirety;
וְהָכָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – קָסָבַר: מִלְּתָא דְּמִתְעבְדָא בְּאַפֵּי עַשְׂרָה – צְרִיכָא בֵּי עַשְׂרָה לְמִישְׁלְפַהּ.
and here, this is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: he holds that a matter that is performed in the presence of ten people requires a forum of ten people to revoke it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״כּוּלְּכֶם״, מַהוּ?
A dilemma was raised before them: If the husband said to ten people, "All of you" write and give a get, what is the halakha according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel if he nullified it before only some of them?
טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: עֵדוּת שֶׁבָּטְלָה מִקְצָתָהּ בָּטְלָה כּוּלָּהּ – וְהָנֵי, כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״, לָא מָצוּ כָּתְבִי וְיָהֲבִי;
Is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel because he holds that testimony that was invalidated in part of it is invalidated in its entirety, and we worry the others will act in ignorance? And as for these remaining agents, since he said to them "All of you," they cannot write and give it without the others anyway, so there is no concern of a mishap, and he can nullify it before only some of them;
אוֹ דִלְמָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: כֹּל מִלְּתָא דְּמִתְעַבְדָא בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי עַשְׂרָה, צְרִיכָא בֵּי עַשְׂרָה לְמִישְׁלְפַהּ – וְהִילְכָּךְ, אֲפִילּוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״ נָמֵי?
Or perhaps the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is because he holds that any matter that is performed in the presence of ten people requires ten people to revoke it, and therefore, even if he said "All of you," he must also nullify it in the presence of all ten?
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: If one said to two people, "Give a get to my wife," he is able to nullify the agency before this one not in the presence of that one; these are the words of Rabbi.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He is not able to nullify it except before this one in the presence of that one.
וְהָא שְׁנַיִם, דְּכִי ״כוּלְּכֶם״ דָּמוּ, וּפְלִיגִי!
And yet a case of two agents is like a case of "All of you," because a get cannot be written and signed by fewer than two, and yet they disagree! This proves Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason is that a matter requires the same forum to revoke it.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי בְּעֵדֵי כְתִיבָה – הָכִי נָמֵי;
Rav Ashi said: If the baraita was speaking of witnesses of the writing and signing, indeed so, it would be a proof;
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בְּעֵדֵי הוֹלָכָה.
but here we are dealing with witnesses of delivery, where one agent is sufficient to deliver it, so there is still a concern that the other will deliver it in ignorance.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִיסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא:
This too stands to reason, as the latter clause teaches:
אָמַר לָזֶה בִּפְנֵי עצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה.
If he said to this one on his own and to that one on his own, he is able to nullify the agency of this one not in the presence of that one.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּעֵדֵי הוֹלָכָה – שַׁפִּיר;
Granted, if you say it is speaking of witnesses of delivery, it is well, as they can be appointed separately;
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּעֵדֵי כְתִיבָה, מִי מִצְטָרְפִי?!
but if you say it is speaking of witnesses of writing, can they combine to sign the get if they were appointed separately?
הָא אָמַר מָר: אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד!
But didn't the Master say: Their testimony does not combine until both of them see the event as one, together?
דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who says that witnesses do not need to see the event together to combine.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא תַּרְתֵּי – חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי, וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל;
Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: I heard from Rabbi Abba two rulings regarding these disputes—one in accordance with Rabbi, and one in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel;
וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי כְּרַבִּי וְהֵי כְּרבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
and I do not know which is in accordance with Rabbi and which is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן – דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
Rav Yosef said: Let us analyze it ourselves, for when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: There was an incident and Rabbi acted in accordance with the words of the Sages that a husband can nullify a get in court not in the agent's presence.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי פַּרְטָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פַּרְטָא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי פַּרְטָא הַגָּדוֹל: אִם כֵּן, מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה?
Rabbi Perata, the son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, the grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If so, what advantage does the court have if the husband can simply bypass their ordinance?
וְחָזַר רַבִּי וְעָשָׂה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
And Rabbi retracted and acted in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, ruling that the nullification is invalid.
וּמִדְּהָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָךְ כְּרַבִּי.
And since this ruling is decided in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that other ruling regarding the ten agents must be in accordance with Rabbi.
וְאַף רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא סָבַר, חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
And even Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha holds that one ruling is in accordance with Rabbi and one is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: חַמְשָׁה סָבֵי הֲוֵינַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּמִן אוּשָׁא, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא קַמֵּיהּ, וְאַשְׁקְלֵיהּ גִּיטָּא עַל כּוּרְחֵיהּ.
As Rabbah bar bar Hanah said: We were five elders before Rabbi Yoshiya of Usha, when a certain man came before him, and he forced him to give a get against his will.
אֲמַר לַן: זִילוּ אִטַּמּוּרוּ וּכְתֻבוּ לַהּ.
He said to us: Go, hide yourselves, and write the get for her, so the husband cannot find you to nullify it.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּרַבִּי, כִּי מִיטַּמְּרִי מַאי הָוֵי?
And if it enters your mind that he holds in accordance with Rabbi that a husband can nullify a get even not in the agent's presence, when they hide, what of it? He could still nullify it in court!
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ;
Rather, learn from this that he holds in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that post facto, nullification not in the agent's presence is invalid;
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אִידַּךְ נָמֵי כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לְמָה לְהוּ אִטַּמּוֹרֵי? לִיבַּדְּרוּ אִיבַּדּוֹרֵי!
and if it enters your mind that the other ruling regarding ten agents is also in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, why did they need to hide? Let them scatter, and then he could never nullify it before all of them!
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – חֲדָא כְּרַבִּי, וַחֲדָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
Rather, learn from this that one ruling is in accordance with Rabbi, and one is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן.
And Rava said that Rav Nachman said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi in both of them.
וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן ״מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה״?!
The Gemara asks: And does Rav Nachman not hold of the principle "what advantage does the court have"?
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:
But didn't Rav Nachman say that Shmuel said:
The Gemara analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a husband who nullifies a get in front of only some of his appointed agents. We explore two possible reasons for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's view: either he holds that testimony partially invalidated is entirely invalidated (nimtza echad mehen karov o pasul), or he holds that a matter established in the presence of ten requires ten to revoke it. A dilemma is raised regarding a case where the husband said "all of you write," which is analyzed through a baraita discussing two agents. Rav Ashi distinguishes between witnesses of writing and witnesses of delivery, and the Gemara concludes with Rav Yosef bringing a report from Rav Dimi about a practical ruling of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the response of Rabbi Perata regarding the standing and strength of the Beis Din.
In our sugya, we encounter a powerful principle of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: "A matter that is performed in the presence of ten people requires the presence of ten people to revoke it." When a husband appoints a group to write a get, he cannot simply whisper a cancellation to one or two of them on the side. The undoing of an act must match the weight, the respect, and the forum of the act itself.
How often do we make a beautiful, public commitment to our family, our community, or to Hashem, only to let it quietly slip away in private? We make a kabbalah (resolution) in a moment of inspiration, surrounded by others, but when the excitement fades, we cancel it in the dark corners of our mind where nobody is looking.
True yiras Shamayim and integrity mean that we treat our commitments with the same gravity when we step away from them as we did when we took them on. If you made a promise or started a good practice with strength and presence, do not let it dissolve through neglect or quiet compromise. Respect your own holy moments.
Today, pick one commitment or resolution you made in a moment of inspiration that has started to slip away. Recommit to it with the same energy and focus you had when you first took it upon yourself.