Q&A: A Decree
A Decree
Question
Sometimes the Sages institute a decree lest X happen, but X seems very, very unlikely or uncommon. For example, I just came across Gittin 18b: if on a bill of divorce one witness signed first (out of ten) and that witness turns out to be a relative or otherwise disqualified, the bill of divorce is invalid, because since he signed first, people may come to say: this one surely signed for the sake of testimony, and they will validate a relative in all documents (Rashi there).
But who would ever come to validate such a witness? Every yeshiva student knows that a relative is disqualified from giving testimony!
And another question in general: I find Rashi’s concern above difficult. His wording is: “since he signed first, people may come to say: this one surely signed for the sake of testimony, and they will validate a relative in all documents.” I don’t understand why he has to get to all documents and that concern. He should have explained something simpler: people may come to say: this one surely signed for the sake of testimony, and they will validate a relative witness in a bill of divorce too, even when there are not ten witnesses.
Answer
- These concerns are made up of a combination of two elements: the likelihood that it will happen, and the severity of the result if it does happen.
- You asked why they connected it to a concern about all documents and not only a bill of divorce. The answer is exactly what you yourself asked. That is to show that this is a more substantial concern, meaning it has a greater chance of actually occurring.
- Reality in our time is not always similar to what it was in their time.
- Specifically regarding a disqualified witness: today it is obvious to you that such a person is disqualified, but it is בהחלט possible that in their time this was not obvious (see the previous point). Especially since one might have thought that this applies specifically to a document, where people might come to validate a relative. Both because they were lenient regarding documents based on written testimony, so perhaps they would also validate a relative, and also because not everyone understands that this is testimony in the same sense as in a religious court.
Discussion on Answer
You don’t need a source for that. Everyone there saw that they write a date in bills of divorce, and the Talmud asks why they do that.
Nice, thanks.
At the beginning of the Talmudic passage on 17b they ask: for what reason did they institute a date? But who says they instituted a date in bills of divorce at all? From the Mishnah about “written by day,” etc., it is clear that an incorrect date invalidates it, but how is it clear that one must write a date from the outset? What do you think?