Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 2 Mishnah 7

גיטין פרק ב׳ משנה ז׳

7

There are instances in which a woman’s testimony that another woman’s husband has died is not deemed credible (Yevamot 117a). If there is a presumption that due to their familial relationship the two women hate each other, there is concern that the woman is testifying falsely in order to harm the other woman. By doing so, she can cause the other woman to remarry. If her original husband then proves to be living, she will be required to leave her second husband. This mishna teaches: Even the women who are not deemed credible to testify on behalf of a woman and say: Her husband died, and she is permitted to remarry, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. The relatives of the woman who are not deemed credible to testify that her husband has died are: Her mother-in-law; and her mother-in-law’s daughter; and her rival wife, i.e., another wife of her husband’s; and her yevama, i.e., her husband’s brother’s wife; and her husband’s daughter. The mishna explains: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife, and the testimony is needed only to supplement the bill of divorce. Similarly, the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as the Gemara will explain.

אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּטָּהּ, חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם:

ז׳
Bartenura

וחמותה ובת חמותה כו' – [they] are not believed to say that her husband died, because they hate her and intend to disgrace her.

ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – and especially when the husband made a condition with her at the time that he delivered the Jewish bill of divorce to her hand and said to her: You will not be divorced other than in the court of so-and-so, and you will say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” And the court takes it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] from her hand after she said, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” and appoint an agent who will go back and give it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her, but the wife whose Jewish bill of divorce leaves her hand in whatever place she happens to be, is [considered to be] divorced. And even if the Jewish bill of divorce’s signatories are not verified, and she does not have to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

חמותה ובת חמותה כו׳ אינן נאמנות לומר מת בעלה, משום דסניין לה ומכוונין לקלקלה:

ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפ״נ ובפ״נ. ודוקא כשהתנה הבעל עמה בשעה שמסר הגט לידה ואמר לה לא תתגרשי אלא בבית דינו של פלוני ותאמרי בפ״נ ובפ״נ. והב״ד לוקחין אותו מידה אחר שאמרה בפ״נ ובפ״נ, וממנין שליח שיחזור ויתן אותו לה. אבל אשה שגיטה יוצא מתחת ידה בכל מקום שהיא, הרי זו מגורשת, ואפילו שאין הגט מקוים בחותמיו, ואינה צריכה שתאמר בפ״נ ובפ״נ: