Gittin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 3

 

הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלּוֹ פָּסוּל

 

If one brings a get from abroad and declares:

It was written in my presence but not, It was signed in my presence ;

It was signed in my presence but not It was written in my presence ;

All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence ;

Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence ; [in all these cases] the get is invalid.

 

In all of these cases one person brings the get, and he cannot recite the full formula. Even if he can recite nearly the whole formula but cannot honestly say that the entire get was written and fully signed by two witnesses in his presence, the get is invalid. As we learned above, when the mishnah say that this get is invalid it means that in order for the woman to use this get to remarry, the witnesses themselves must verify their signatures or two witnesses must testify that they recognize both signatures. The testimony of the one who brought the get is not sufficient in and of itself.

 

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל

 

If one says, It was written in my presence and another says, It was signed in my presence , the get is invalid.

 

In this case, one messenger testifies that the get was written in his presence but cannot say that it was signed in his presence, and the other person with him says that the get was signed in his presence but cannot say that the get was also written in his presence. Since there is no complete declaration made by any one messenger, the get is not valid. Again, this means that it remains invalid until its signatures are validated.

 

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר

 

If two say, It was written in our presence and another says, It was signed in my presence , it is invalid.

Rabbi Judah declares it valid.

 

In this case two people bring the get and both can testify that the get was written in their presence, but neither can say that it was signed in their presence. A third person says that it was signed in his presence. The first opinion states that the get is still invalid, and still needs to be upheld by validating the signatures. Rabbi Judah holds that the get is already valid since there is full testimony by two witnesses on the writing. To Rabbi Judah, the writing is the essential part of the making of the get and if two testify that the writing was done properly, the get is valid. This is not through their being deliverers of the get, but rather through their being witnesses.

 

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם כָּשֵׁר

 

If one says, It was written in my presence and two say, It was signed in our presence , it is valid.

 

The fact that two can say it was signed in our presence is sufficient to validate the get.

 

גְּמָ׳ הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא צָרִיךְ וְאִי לָא אָמַר כָּשֵׁר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

 

Gemara: Why do we need to teach this again? We taught this already once: One who brings a get from abroad must say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.

If from that, I would have said, He needs to but if he did not it is still valid. Therefore it teaches us [that it is not].

 

The first part of the mishnah is perceived as being superfluous for it teaches the same thing as was taught at the beginning of the tractate. The Talmud answers that this mishnah comes to teach that if he can t make that full declaration, the get is invalid. If we only had the first mishnah, we might have thought that while he should make the declaration, if he does not, the get is still valid.