Study Gittin folio 24A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
וממקום שבאת, מה להלן צריכות שיאמרו: ״בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם״, אף היא צריכה שתאמר: ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״.
And from the place that you came, i.e., from this inference itself, one establishes: Just as there, those who bring the bill of divorce must say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, so too, she herself must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. This baraita must be referring to a case in which the wife brought the bill of divorce from outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is only then that she must state that it was written and signed in her presence. Therefore, the baraita supports the opinion of Abaye.
אמר רב אשי: מתניתין נמי דיקא, דקתני: האשה עצמה מביאה גיטה, ובלבד שתהא צריכה לומר כו׳; שמע מינה.
Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah is also precisely formulated in a way that supports Abaye’s opinion, as it teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Learn from the Mishnah that it is referring to a case outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Abaye explained.
The Talmud asks: But according to Rav Yosef, is it possible to say that the first clause of the Mishnah (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce, and the last clause of the Mishnah (23b): The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the middle clause: Even the women who are not deemed credible, discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael? The Talmud answers: Yes, the first clause and the last clause discuss a case that takes place in a location outside of Eretz Yisrael, but the middle clause discusses a case that takes place in Eretz Yisrael.