Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And that is the case only when there was an adult standing over him. When the adult supervises the writing, and instructs him to write it for her sake, it will be valid.
וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Naḥman said to him: If that is so, that anyone who is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce may do so with an adult supervising him, then if the one writing is a gentile, and a Jew stands over him and instructs him to write it for her sake, would you also say that it is valid? And if you would say that it is also valid, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: A gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce in any event? Rav Huna answered: A gentile acts based on his own will. Since he is halakhically competent, he will have his own intentions while writing and may not be relied upon to carry out the intentions of the supervisor. In the case of the mishna, since those doing the writing are not halakhically competent, they will write according to the instructions of the supervisor.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גּוֹי – וְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכָשֵׁר?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל! גּוֹי, לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָבֵד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Naḥman then said: What I said when I raised a challenge from a case involving a gentile is not correct, as from the fact that the mishna later disqualifies a gentile with regard to acting as an agent in the bringing of the bill of divorce, one can learn by inference that he is qualified with regard to writing, where he is not listed among those who are disqualified.
הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; דְּמִדְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוֹי לְעִנְיַן הֲבָאָה, מִכְּלָל דִּלְעִנְיַן כְּתִיבָה – כָּשֵׁר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that a gentile is disqualified from writing a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and when the verse states: “And he writes her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is the source for the halakha that the writing needs to be done for her sake, it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce and not to its signing. Therefore, we need the writing to be for her sake, and certainly a gentile acts based on his own will and may not be relied upon to write the bill of divorce according to the instructions of a supervisor.
וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל! הַהִיא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ; וְהָא וַדַּאי גּוֹי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָעָבֵיד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : With regard to the requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, Rav Naḥman says that Rabbi Meir would have said: Even if the husband found the bill of divorce in the garbage dump, and the names written on it happened to be the same as his and his wife’s names, if he had it signed by witnesses and he gave it to her, then it is valid, because the essential requirement is that it be signed for her sake.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֲפִילּוּ מְצָאוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה, חֲתָמוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman: The verse states: “And he writes her,” which is interpreted to mean that it must be written for her sake. What, is it not referring to the actual writing of the bill of divorce, that it must be written with the intent that it be used to sever this particular marriage? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the signing of the witnesses.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ; מַאי, לָאו כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט?! לֹא, חֲתִימַת עֵדִים.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raised another objection to him based on what was taught in a mishna (24a): Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. He responded: Say that according Rabbi Meir the mishna teaches: Any bill of divorce that was not signed for the sake of a specific woman is invalid.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא: כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל! אֵימָא: שֶׁנֶּחְתַּם שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raised another objection to him based on another baraita: When he writes it, it is as though he writes it for her sake, meaning that writing one part for her sake makes it as if the entire document were written for her sake. What, it is not stating that when he writes the essential part of the document, which includes the names of the spouses; the date on which it was written; and the expression: Behold you are permitted to any man, for her sake, then is it as though he writes the standard part of the bill of divorce, containing the rest of the information, for her sake? This baraita indicates that there is a requirement that the bill of divorce, not just the signatures, be written for her sake.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ. מַאי, לָאו כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לַטּוֹפֶס לִשְׁמָהּ?!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Naḥman rejects this: No, Rabbi Meir would explain that this baraita is referring to a case where he has witnesses sign it for her sake; it is as though he wrote it for her sake. And if you wish, say: Who is the tanna of these baraitot from which you raised challenges? They are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. According to him, the verse is referring to the writing and not the signing of the bill of divorce, and the writing must be for her sake.
לֹא; כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹתְמוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And the statement of the mishna that one who is not halakhically competent is qualified to write a bill of divorce is the halakha only when he left unwritten the essential part of the document, which will be written later by a halakhically competent person, as only the essential part must be written for her sake. And so Rabbi Ḥagga says in the name of Ulla: And this is the halakha only when he left the essential part of the document unwritten, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, that the writing of the essential part must be done for her sake.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חַגָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is not Torah. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by the expression: It is not Torah? Rabbi Abba says: Here Rabbi Yoḥanan informs you that there is no force to a requirement that a bill of divorce be written for her sake, as only the signing needs to be done for her sake. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce.
וְרַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה. מַאי ״אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁאֵין כֹּחַ לִשְׁמָהּ; וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say earlier that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? How, then, can Rabbi Abba say that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: They are amora’im and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, whether he explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of Rabbi Elazar.
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.