אָמַר רָבָא: כָּתַב לָהּ גֵּט, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד עַ

Gittin 21a The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz) Loading... 21a זָקֵן שָׁאנֵי, דְּיָדַע לְאַקְנוֹיֵי. a knowledgeable old man is different, as he understands the need to transfer the documents, and this may not be true in the case of a woman and the bill of divorce. אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מֵהָכָא – עָרֵב הַיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין! Rather, Rava said: A proof may be brought from here: If there was a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the promissory note was signed, then the creditor may collect only from the guarantor’s unsold property. However, he does not have a lien on the guarantor’s property with which he could collect from property sold after he signed on as a guarantor. Rava’s proof is that it must be that ownership of the promissory note was transferred to the guarantor before he signed it, in order for his commitment to take effect. It may therefore be seen from this baraita that the participants understand the need to transfer ownership of the document. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא גַּבְרָא שָׁאנֵי, דְּיָדַע לְאַקְנוֹיֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מֵהָכָא – אִשָּׁה כּוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וְהָאִישׁ כּוֹתֵב אֶת שׁוֹבָרוֹ, שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּחוֹתְמָיו. Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty raised by this baraita? Perhaps a man is different, in that he understands the need to transfer the document, and the question of the Gemara pertains to a woman, who may not be as well versed in the minutiae of monetary law. Rather, Rav Ashi said: There is a proof from what was taught here (22b): A woman may write her bill of divorce on her own or allow a scribe to write it on her behalf, and then give it to her husband, so that he will give it to her. Similarly, a man may write his receipt that he will receive from the woman after paying her marriage contract, as the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, i.e., the witnesses who sign it, and the mere writing of the document or its receipt has no legal ramifications and may be done by anyone. In any case, it is clear from here that a woman understands the need to transfer the bill of divorce that will be given to her by her husband in the future. אָמַר רָבָא: כָּתַב לָהּ גֵּט, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, וְכָתַב לָהּ שְׁטַר מַתָּנָה עָלָיו – קְנָאַתְהוּ, וּמִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בּוֹ. § Rava says: If he wrote her a bill of divorce and placed it in the hand of his slave, and he wrote her a deed of gift with regard to the slave, then she acquired the slave due to the document, and she is divorced immediately by the bill of divorce that is in his hand. The slave is considered to be like her property, and it is as though the husband had placed the bill of divorce in her domain at the time that he transferred the slave to her, and she acquires the bill of divorce as though it were in her courtyard.