Gittin, Daf Gimmel, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues the discussion about why the two amoraim did not say what the other said. The previous section ended with Rabbah saying that if Rava was correct, the declaration should have just been in my presence it was signed. The words in my presence it was written indicate that the issue is the necessity for the get to be written with her in mind.

 

וְרָבָא בְּדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי הָכִי אֶלָּא דְּאִם כֵּן אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא בְּעֵד אֶחָד

 

And Rava could say: Indeed, it should have taught this, but if it did, they might come to confuse this with upholding documents in general, [and think] that one witness [is sufficient].

 

Rava answers that the phrase in my presence it was written is there to prevent confusion with upholding other documents, not gittin, where we do require two to testify to its validity. Since there is no in my presence it was written for upholding regular documents, people will not get confused between the two situations.

 

וְרַבָּה מִי דָּמֵי הָתָם יָדְעִינַן הָכָא בְּפָנַי

הָתָם אִשָּׁה לָא מְהֵימְנָא הָכָא אִשָּׁה מְהֵימְנָא

הָתָם בַּעַל דָּבָר לָא מְהֵימַן הָכָא בַּעַל דָּבָר מְהֵימַן

 

And Rabbah would say: Are the two similar [at all]: There [the messengers say] we know here [he says] In my presence. There a woman is not believed, here a woman is believed. There, the interested party is not believed, here the interested party is believed.

 

Rabbah points out that there are three differences between the messenger bringing a get and messengers upholding a document. These differences would prevent any misunderstandings. These are three differences 1) when it comes to upholding a document, the messengers just say that they know it is valid. With the get, the messenger has to say In my presence .2) For upholding the document women are not believed, but women can be messengers to bring a get. 3) The woman getting divorced can bring her own get. But an interested party cannot uphold his own document.

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ אַטּוּ הָכָא כִּי אָמְרִי יָדְעִינַן מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי אָמְרִי יָדְעִינַן מְהֵימְנִי אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא בְּעֵד אֶחָד

 

And Rava would say back: If these say We know are they not believed? And since if they say We know they are believed, people might come to confuse it with upholding documents in general and think this can be done with one.

 

Rava claims that the messenger bringing a get could say I know [that the get was written and signed properly]. He does not have to say the exact formula in the mishnah. And since he could say that, the formula must include a clause about the get being written in order to prevent confusion with upholding other documents.