יָתֵר מִיכָּן, הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה – לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה.

Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it.

יָתֵר מִיכָּן, אָמַר לְלַבְלָר ״כְּתוֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ״ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.

Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.

גמ׳ ״כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ״ וכו׳; וְאֶלָּא רֵישָׁא בְּמַאי?

The second clause of the mishna considers a case where one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town with identical personal details found him and desired to use the bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But then with what case is the first clause of the mishna, where a man discovers that a scribe had written a bill of divorce with identical personal details to his own, dealing; isn’t that also a case of a bill of divorce that was written for someone else? Why did the tanna cite two seemingly identical cases?

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: בְּסוֹפְרִין הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְהִתְלַמֵּד עָסְקִינַן. אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: דַּיְקָא נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״סוֹפְרִין מַקְרִין״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״סוֹפְרִין קוֹרְאִין״. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with scribes who are practicing writing; the bill of divorce in the first case was written as an exercise and not because someone requested that it be written. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Scribes dictating, i.e., to their students, and it does not teach: Scribes reading the names on their own. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this phrasing that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.

מַאי ״יָתֵר מִיכָּן״? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֹא זֶה שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין, אֶלָּא אַף זֶה שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין – פָּסוּל;

By employing the introductory term: Moreover, the mishna indicates that each case teaches an additional novelty beyond that of the previous case. The Gemara asks: What novel element warrants the use of the term: Moreover? The Gemara answers by quoting a baraita : The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that not only this bill of divorce, which was written for practice and which was not written for the sake of divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of divorce but the husband then reconsidered and did not use it, is unfit to be used by someone else.

וְלֹא זֶה שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין דִּידֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אַף זֶה שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין דִּידֵיהּ – פָּסוּל; וְלֹא זֶה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין הָא, אֶלָּא אַף זֶה שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשׁוּם גֵּירוּשִׁין הָא – פָּסוּל.

And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of his own divorce, is unfit, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for the sake of his own divorce, albeit for a particular wife, is unfit to be used for divorcing his other wife. And not only this bill of divorce, which was not written for the sake of this wife’s divorce, but even that bill of divorce, which was written for this wife’s divorce, as he instructed the scribe to write the bill of divorce for the sake of whichever wife he decides to divorce, is unfit to use in divorce.

מַאי טַעֲמָא? אִי כְּתַב ״וְנָתַן סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת בְּיָדָהּ״, הֲוָה אָמִינָא לְמַעוּטֵי הָאֵיךְ קַמָּא דְּלָא עֲבִיד לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת, אֲבָל כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ, דַּעֲבִיד לְשׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת, אֵימָא כָּשֵׁר – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְכָתַב״;

The Gemara explains: What is the reason that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced? It is stated in the verse that deals with divorce: “And he writes for her a scroll of severance and gives it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1). This teaches the following: If the Merciful One had written only: And he gives a scroll of severance in her hand, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case of the first clause of the mishna, where it was done not for the sake of severance, as the scribe wrote the bill of divorce as a mere exercise; however, if one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife but then reconsidered, where it was done for the sake of severance, I would say that it is valid for another man to use for divorcing his wife. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “And he writes,” meaning that the bill of divorce must be written exclusively for the sake of his own divorce.

אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְכָתַב״ הֲוָה אָמִינָא לְמַעוּטֵי הַאי דְּלָא אִיהוּ קָא כָּתֵיב לָהּ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, דְּאִיהוּ קָא כָּתֵיב לָהּ אֵימָא כָּשֵׁר – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.

The Gemara continues the explanation: If the Merciful One had written only: And he writes, I would say that the verse serves to exclude this case mentioned previously, where the man using the bill of divorce was not the one who wrote it; but if a man has two wives with the same name, so that the man using the bill of divorce is writing it, say that it is a valid bill of divorce. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “And he writes for her,” teaching that a bill of divorce must be written for the sake of a specific wife.

וְסֵיפָא לָמָּה לִי? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the last clause of the mishna, which deals with a man who writes a bill of divorce for whichever wife he later chooses? The earlier clauses made clear that one must write the bill of divorce for the sake of the woman who is being divorced. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., that one does not say that since he gave the bill of divorce to this wife, it is clarified retroactively that he had written the bill of divorce for her sake; rather, he must write it for her sake from the outset.

״כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה – לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה״. קְטַנָּה הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ, הָא גְּדוֹלָה מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: If he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older of his two wives and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger wife with it, even though the two wives share the same name. The Gemara deduces from this: It is the younger one whom he is not able to divorce with it, but he is able to divorce the older wife with it, as it was written for her from the outset. This is the case even though the younger wife would be able to collect payment of her marriage contract and remarry if she were to present this bill of divorce, as the court would think it was written for her.

אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת – מוֹצִיאִין שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל אֲחֵרִים.

Rava said: That is to say that one of two people with identical names, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city, can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others, and the borrower cannot claim that the promissory note was written for the other Yosef ben Shimon.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ – פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ; שֵׁנִי הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ, הָא רִאשׁוֹן מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ בֵּיהּ? וְהָא אָמְרִינַן: וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב!

Abaye said to him: If that is so, then according to your reasoning, from the earlier clause of the mishna that teaches that if one man requests a bill of divorce from another, saying: My name is the same as your name, the bill of divorce is unfit for the second person to divorce his wife with it, one could infer that the second man is the one who is not able to divorce with it, but the first man is able to divorce with it even though they have the same names. But didn’t we say in a mishna ( Bava Batra 172a): With regard to two people with identical names, neither of them can present a promissory note to the other, and another person cannot present a promissory note to them, as each one can deny that he is the one who owes the money? Here too, there is a concern lest the wife of the other use the bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract even though the bill of divorce was not written for her.

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא,

Rather, what have you to say to explain how the first man can divorce his wife with this bill of divorce, and how it can be used as a reliable proof of divorce? One can say that the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce, and they confirm in court which woman was given the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that presence of witnesses at the transmission of the bill of divorce is essential to its taking effect, so there is no concern that the wife of the other man will claim payment of her marriage contract.

הָכָא נַמִי בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

Here too, in the case of two wives of the same man who have the same name, the ruling of the mishna applies in a case where there are witnesses who observe the transmission of the bill of divorce. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and there is no concern that the other wife will claim payment of her marriage contract. Therefore, one should not deduce from this, as Rava did, that one of two people with the same name can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others.

אָמַר רַב: כּוּלָּן פּוֹסְלִין בִּכְהוּנָּה חוּץ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף רִאשׁוֹן נַמִי פּוֹסֵל.

§ Rav says: All of the bills of divorce that the mishna categorizes as unfit to use for divorce still disqualify the women who receive them from marrying into the priesthood, as she is considered a divorced woman with regard to the halakha of marrying a priest, except for the first bill of divorce mentioned in the mishna. Unlike the other cases, that one was not written for the sake of divorce at all but was written only as part of a scribe’s training. And Shmuel says: Even the first bill of divorce disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood.

וְאַזְדָא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעֲמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנוּ חֲכָמִים ״גֵּט פָּסוּל״ – פָּסוּל וּפוֹסֵל, ״חֲלִיצָה פְּסוּלָה״ – פְּסוּלָה וּפוֹסַלְתָּהּ מִן הָאַחִין.

And Shmuel follows his own line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: Any place where the Sages taught in a mishna: An invalid bill of divorce, it indicates both that it is invalid to be used as a bill of divorce and that it nevertheless disqualifies the one who receives it from marrying a priest. Similarly, where the Sages taught: An invalid ḥalitza , it indicates both that the ḥalitza is invalid and that it nevertheless disqualifies the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.

בְּמַעַרְבָא אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׂמֹאל וְלַיְלָה – פְּסוּלוֹת וּפוֹסְלוֹת,

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: If ḥalitza was performed on the left foot of the yavam , or at night, these acts of ḥalitza are invalid, and they nevertheless disqualify the yevama from entering into levirate marriage with the other brothers.