Give (pl) (this) Get
A recent important variant occurred in the Mishnah on Gittin 13a. We’ll begin with what (the variations) and only at the end discuss why (the implications of each variant).
First, note the Mishnah on Gittin 11b.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן – יַחְזוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, if before the document reaches the woman or the slave the giver wishes to retract his decision, then with regard to both of them, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים; לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו;
And the Rabbis say: One can retract his decision in the case of bills of divorce but not in the case of bills of manumission. The Rabbis explain the reason for their ruling: This is because one can act in a person’s interest in his absence, and therefore the agent acquires the document on behalf of the slave from the moment the owner hands the bill of manumission to the agent. But one can act to a person’s detriment only in his presence. The receipt of a bill of divorce is considered to be to a woman’s detriment, and therefore an agent cannot receive it for her without her consent.
and it continues for a bit, though I am not quoting the rest. That Mishnah is interrupted by a patch of gemara in our printed Bavli (but not in Yerushalmi). So it resumes on on Gittin 13a, and seems to have parallel language for the case:
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, שְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, וּמֵת – לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
MISHNA: In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one does not give it after his death. The reason for this is that bills of divorce and manumission must be transferred by the husband or the master. Once he has died the document can no longer be given, and the agency he appointed for this purpose is likewise canceled. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death.
The variation is the first three words. Is it is plural tenu, or the singular ten? Is the determiner zeh present for the bill of divorce and bill of manumission, or is it absent?
There is a Rashi on 13a.
which establishes the girsa as tenu in the plural, to the exclusion of the singular ten. Note the little (א) footnote in that Rashi. That refers us to Bach’s emendation of the dibbur hamatchil:
He says that we should omit the definite article zeh, and points us to the words of the Rosh. OK, let us look at the Rosh:
מתני' האומר תנו גט לאשתי ושטר שחרור לעבדי ומת לא יתנו לאחר מיתה תנו מנה לפלוני ומת יחנו לאחר מיתה ובשכ"מ מוקמינן למתני' דדברי שכ"מ ככתובין וכמסורין דמי ול"ש אמר תנו לו מנה זו ול"ש אמר תנו לו מנה סתם ולא אמרינן שמא מנה קבור קאמר דבהדיא אמרינן והלכתא למנה קבור לא חיישינן והא דלא אוקמה בבריא ומשום מצוה לקיים דברי המת משום דלא אמר מצוה לקיים דברי המת אלא בדבר המושלש לכך ביד שליש דומיא דהמשליש מעות לבתו ותנו שקל לבני כתובות סט: וההיא דסוף פירקין הולך מנה לפלוני ומתני' משמע דלא הושלש מתחילה לכך מדלא קתני תנו מנה זה לפלוני וכן משמע מעובדא דאיסור גיורא ב"ב דף קמט. דאמאי לא נתנם רבא לרב מרי משום מצוה לקיים דברי המת אלא משום דלא הפקידו בתחילה ביד רבא לתתם לרב מרי:
I think it is simply a matter of how the Rosh quotes the Mishnah, without zeh in each clause, vs. e.g. our text of the Rif’s Mishnah, that has zeh.
The unfixed Rashi, containing zeh, also appears in the Bomberg Venice Talmud.
Looking at Hachi Garsinan, at printings and manuscripts, there is some variation in ten / tenu, but every text has the word zeh. Almost.
I say “almost” because all of them have zeh in the Mishnah (assuming it appears), but then, in the Geonic-era piska, it might not have zeh.
So, for instance, Vatican 130 had תנו גט זה לאשתי in the Mishnah, same for get shichrur, but then skips the zeh in the piska.
So too in the piska in Firkowitz 187, without the zeh:
We can examine the same situation a bit later in the gemara, ממאי, when they deduce something from this Mishnah. Most texts have zeh:
Here, Firkowitz 187 is consistent in omitting zeh but Vatican 130 now has zeh.
The Mishnah as printed in the Yerushalmi has both singular ten and the definite article zeh.
משנה: הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן יַחֲזוֹר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְפָנָיו שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ רַשַּׁאי וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתִּוּ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶן וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְייָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי וָמֵת לֹא יִינָֽתְנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מְנָה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וָמֵת יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce but not for slaves’ documents of manumission because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death.
There is also a Tosafot on the page, discussing both ten / tenu and get / get zeh:
האומר תנו גט - אי גרסי' תן גט זה אתיא מתני' כר"מ דוקא אי נמי אפי' כרבנן וכגון שאינו מוסרו מיד ליד אלא מראהו לו ומצוה ליתנו והוא לא נטלו עד אחר מיתה אי נמי נטלו לאלתר ואפ"ה לא זכה העבד ונאמר דלא אמרי' תן כזכי אלא כשמוסר לשליח מיד ליד ואשמעינן במאי דנקט זה דאע"ג שהגט בעין וראוי לינתן בשעה שעושהו שליח והותחל כל כך מחיים אפ"ה לא יגמרו הדבר לאחר מיתה דאין גט לאחר מיתה אבל אור"ת דל"ג כלל זה דע"כ לא תנא זה במתני' לשום חידוש מדדייק בגמרא דמתני' בבריא דאי בשכ"מ מאי איריא תנו אפילו כתבו נמי ואי תנא זה לאשמועינן שום חידוש אפילו מיירי בשכיב מרע לא ה"ל למימר כתבו ואין נראה לומר דהכי דייק אי בשכיב מרע הוה ליה למיתני כתבו גט לאשתי ותנו שחרור זה לעבדי דהא כיון דצריך לשנות תנו שחרור זה אין לו לתנא לשנות כתבו גט לאשתי ולהאריך בלשון:
I will quote Point by Point Summary of Tosafot for an easy translation. See, I’m lazy and rushed.
TOSFOS DH "HA'OMER"
תוס' ד"ה "האומר"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not the word "this" is in our Mishnah.)
אי גרסי' תן גט זה
(a) Implied Question: Whose opinion is most like that of our Mishnah: Rebbi Meir or the Rabbanan (12a-b)?
אתיא מתני' כר"מ דוקא
(b) Answer #1: If the correct text of the Mishnah is "give this Get," our Mishnah is solely according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir. (Note: According to him the Get was clearly not acquired by the messenger because it was a liability for the servant/wife, which is why it is not (physically) given after the death of the master/husband.)אי נמי אפי' כרבנן וכגון שאינו מוסרו מיד ליד אלא מראהו לו ומצוה ליתנו והוא לא נטלו עד אחר מיתה
(c) Answer #2: Alternatively, it could even be according to the position of the Rabbanan. The case would be where the master/husband did not physically give the Get to the messenger, but rather only showed it to him and commanded him to give it to the slave/wife. However, the messenger only picked it up after the master/husband had died.
אי נמי נטלו לאלתר ואפ"ה לא זכה העבד ונאמר דלא אמרי' תן כזכי אלא כשמוסר לשליח מיד ליד ואשמעינן במאי דנקט זה דאע"ג שהגט בעין וראוי לינתן בשעה שעושהו שליח והותחל כל כך מחיים אפ"ה לא יגמרו הדבר לאחר מיתה דאין גט לאחר מיתה
(d) Answer #3: Alternatively, the messenger indeed took the Get immediately. Even so, the slave did not acquire the Get. This is because we will say that we do not say "give" is like "acquire" unless he physically gave the Get from his hand to that of the messenger. This teaches us that even though the Get is extant and ready to be given when he is made a messenger, and all the preparations were made when the master/husband was alive, even so the Get cannot be concluded after the master/husband dies, as there is no such thing as someone giving a Get after he is already dead.אבל אור"ת דל"ג כלל זה דע"כ לא תנא זה במתני' לשום חידוש מדדייק בגמרא דמתני' בבריא דאי בשכ"מ מאי איריא תנו אפילו כתבו נמי
(e) Opinion: However, Rabeinu Tam says that we do not have the text "this" at all. The word "this" is not in our Mishnah to tell us a novelty, as is apparent from the fact that the Gemara deduced our Mishnah is discussing a healthy person. The Gemara deduces that if the Mishnah was talking about a deathly ill person, why say "give?" Even "write" would be enough!
ואי תנא זה לאשמועינן שום חידוש אפילו מיירי בשכיב מרע לא ה"ל למימר כתבו
1. If "this" was stated to say a novel idea, even if it was referring to a deathly ill person it would not have said a case of "write." (Note: This is because it would be mixing two different concepts together.)ואין נראה לומר דהכי דייק אי בשכיב מרע הוה ליה למיתני כתבו גט לאשתי ותנו שחרור זה לעבדי דהא כיון דצריך לשנות תנו שחרור זה אין לו לתנא לשנות כתבו גט לאשתי ולהאריך בלשון.
2. It does not appear that the Gemara is inferring that if the Mishnah would be discussing a deathly ill person, it should have given a case of "write" a Get for my wife, and "give this" Get Shichrur to my slave. Being that the Mishnah would have to change its terminology and say "give this Get Shichrur," the Tana is not expected to change the first case to "write a Get for my wife" and to lengthen the way the Mishnah is written.
However, I disagree with this translation, because the translator seems solely focused on the word zeh, “this”, and not on the singular / plural of ten / tenu. And in the translation, there is only the word “give”, which is identical for both the plural of multiple people giving and singular people giving.
We know from Rashi already (especially as modified by the Bach - see the top of the post for the quote) that the singular “give”, ten, would indicate immediate mesira, inclusive of the get shichrur. Meanwhile, tenu would be directed to multiple people that they should take care of divorcing his wife for him / freeing his slave for him, and might involve writing the get from scratch.
It may well be that the word zeh, indicative of a get already written, should specifically be paired with singular ten, where the husband / owner is directing a shaliach to deliver. Meanwhile, absence of zeh pairs nicely with the plural tenu, since the get might well not even be in existence during his lifetime.