Gittin 66: Deathbed Divorce

In ordinary circumstances, a gift or a divorce must be received or acquired by someone to take effect.  The rabbis note that on a person’s deathbed*, the acquisition part of the process is not required.  This is because one is expected to die and fulfilling that person’s last wish is a mitzvah.  Even after the person has died, their wish can be fulfilled and is valid without formal acquisition before the time of death. 

The rabbis compare this with a get that is written just before a husband dies.   Is the wife considered to be divorced without formally acquiring the get?  This is obviously different from a gift given on one’s deathbed, for the bond between husband and wife is severed as soon as the husband dies; there may not be a similar need for divorce, which also severs that bond.  The rabbis also note that what is done with the ‘gift’ is also significant.

A new Mishna tells us that a person who is thrown into a pit and expects to die might call out and say that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife and give it to her.  This is considered to be valid, it seems, because people were living in times of danger.  In times of danger, the rabbis rule leniently to ensure that the people maintain what they can of their Jewish observance.  If the man’s call was ignored because he could not be identified, his wife might participate in prohibited sexual relations, which could result in a mamzer.   This would be much more disturbing, the rabbis believe, than potentially issuing a get to a woman who should still be married. 

The Gemara is concerned that this voice might not be that of a man but instead the voice of a demon.  Does he have a shadow that can be seen?  Does he have the shadow of a shadow?  Rabbi Chanina notes that his son Yonatan taught that demons have a shadow but not the shadow of a shadow.  Our notes suggest a number of explanations for the bavuah d’vavuah, the shadow of a shadow.

Another new, short Mishna: A healthy (as opposed to dying, like those men mentioned above) man who said “Write a get for my wife” was actually mocking her.  He did not tell others to deliver the get, and thus it was not a valid document.  Another healthy man said the same thing, but then fell from a rooftop and died.  In this case, it was a valid get.  The rabbis suggest that he knew he was about to die – suicide? – and thus he wanted the get to be delivered to his wife.  But if there was a strong wind that pushed him from the roof, the get is not valid.

The Gemara tells another story: a man found a teacher and his son sitting in the synagogue with another friend.  The man said that two of them should write a get for his wife.  The schoolteacher then died.  Do people designate a son as an agent in the presence of his father?  He should not be eligible as a witness for they are related.  The rabbis argue this point. 

A final Mishna in today’s daf asks what should happen if a man said to two, three, or even ten people that they should write a get and give it to his wife.  Is designating three people the same thing as designating a court?  Can a man ask the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to write his get in order to teach them to write it?  In each circumstance, the rabbis consider how many people should write the get and how many should sign the get to ensure that the get is valid even if one of the witnesses dies.

The rabbis then discuss whether or not it is acceptable to delegate verbal directives to a secondary agent – or even to a primary agent.  They also teach us about the signatures of sages.  Apparently each Sage developed a symbol that would serve as a recognizable, individual signature for public identification.  In a new court, there could be a number of Sages who have not yet developed their new signatures and thus could not sign documents including a get. 

 * This also incudes “one who sets sail, one who sets out in a caravan, or one who is taken out in a neck chain, and one or someone in a neck chain, and one who is dangerously ill.” (Notes p.381)