If a bill of divorce is delivered without delivery witnesses, does the divorce take effect??? Not only according to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the delivery witnesses effect the divorce, where obviously it does not — but according to Rabbi Meir, what would the law be?

In general, throughout this whole passage I understood that there are no delivery witnesses. But if so, how does the divorce take effect?

According to Rabbi Meir, certainly yes. Even according to Rabbi Elazar it takes effect according to the Rif and Maimonides (in their view, Rabbi Elazar also holds that signing witnesses effect it).

They instituted the date because of his wife, the daughter of his sister, according to Rabbi Yohanan, and Rashi explains as follows: “And she is his wife, and perhaps she may commit adultery while married to him, and he takes pity on her and writes her a bill of divorce without a date; and when witnesses testify about her in religious court, she brings out her bill of divorce and says: I was divorced at that time.” End quote.
And this is difficult for me, because the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce remember when they signed it, and they can see that they signed after the date about which the witnesses testify that she committed adultery??!
And if you would say that they might not remember, then one could also say that the delivery witnesses do not remember when the delivery took place! If so, then in Ravina’s question too it could be that there were delivery witnesses. At the moment I don’t see any practical difference whether there were witnesses who don’t remember, or there were none at all, but still…

One more question, if I may.
We said they instituted the date because of his wife, the daughter of his sister, but even if they instituted a date, the husband can still write the wrong date on the bill of divorce in order to cover for her, can’t he?

I already answered that. The witnesses who sign the bill of divorce do so at the time of writing, not at the time of delivery. So the husband has a bill of divorce with a date, and he can give it to the woman whenever he wants. See the Ran, who wrote that according to the Rif’s understanding of Rabbi Elazar, the signing witnesses count as witnesses to the delivery, because if a signed bill of divorce with witnesses is found in the woman’s possession, that proves that the bill of divorce was delivered. We see from this that the signing is done at the time of writing.
If the husband writes an incorrect date, then the witnesses will not sign, or the delivery witnesses will not validate it.

You didn’t answer my question. I’m asking why the enactment of the date is needed at all. After all, when the witnesses sign, they remember on what date they signed. So if later other witnesses testify in religious court that she committed adultery on a certain date, and she produces her bill of divorce, the judges can call in the witnesses who signed, and they can tell them the date of the signing — and then they can see whether the signing date was earlier or later than the date of the adulterous act!

Why are you assuming that the witnesses remember the date? Not only is that unnecessary, it’s really not plausible. Who remembers the exact date of an event after a week or a month or a year?

And furthermore, even if we understand that they instituted the date because of his wife, the daughter of his sister — what does that have to do with a predated bill of divorce? Why would a predated bill of divorce be invalid because of his wife, the daughter of his sister? If he wants to cover for her, he’ll write her a perfectly valid bill of divorce!

I don’t understand how he would cover for her with a valid bill of divorce. In a valid bill of divorce, after all, the correct date is written.

You have to understand the case. We’re talking about his wife, the daughter of his sister, who committed adultery and informs him that she did, but he takes pity on her and therefore writes her a bill of divorce without a date. That’s story A. But how do we then move on to story B — a predated bill of divorce in connection with his wife, the daughter of his sister?? Imagine something like this happened: his wife, the daughter of his sister, committed adultery and informs him, but he takes pity on her and therefore writes her a predated bill of divorce. There’s a problem here: if he wants to cover for her after she informed him, he’ll write her a perfectly valid bill of divorce, with writing and signing on that same day! So I really don’t understand the connection between a predated bill of divorce and his wife, the daughter of his sister.

Be precise and you’ll see that on 17a Rashi explained the enactment of the date according to the story of his wife, the daughter of his sister, but on 17b Rashi explained (s.v. “What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason for validating it?”) the invalidity of a predated bill of divorce as follows: “Sometimes she committed adultery on that same day and she is still a married woman, for as long as it has not been signed, it cannot be given to her,” etc. End quote. And this is very difficult, because if he really wants to cover for his wife, he’ll write her a valid bill of divorce and not a predated one! That is first. And second, we see that he explained the invalidity of an undated bill of divorce in a completely different way from the invalidity of a predated bill of divorce!

I’m just sharing with you what is *really* bothering me in this passage. Maybe we can talk on the phone this week and clarify this point and more.

He writes her a bill of divorce with a date and witness signatures and keeps it in his pocket. She then commits adultery sometime later, and he takes out that bill of divorce and gives it to her.
And even if we are talking about a valid bill of divorce written that same day, the witnesses can still say at what hour it was signed (and after all, this happened after she committed adultery, since only after the adultery did he decide to write and sign the bill of divorce). But with a predated bill of divorce, the witnesses had already signed it long before, so they are of no help at all.