Gittin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud goes on to the next section of the mishnah.

 

בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלּוֹ פָּסוּל

הֵי חֶצְיוֹ אַלֵּימָא חֶצְיוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב בּוֹ אֶלָּא שִׁיטָה אַחַת לִשְׁמָהּ שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי חֶצְיוֹ אַחֲרוֹן

 

Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence, it is invalid:

Which half? If we say the first half, but did not R. Elazar say: Even if he only wrote one line for her sake he does not need to do anymore.

Rather Rav Ashi said: The last half.

 

The mishnah rules that if the agent can testify only that half the get was written in his presence, it is invalid. The Talmud points out that this cannot be the first half, because R. Elazar says that all the scribe has to do is write one line with her in mind and the get is valid. Therefore, R. Ashi explains that it must be the second half, which would include the last line.

 

בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ פָּסוּל

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים עַל חֲתִימַת יַד שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל

מַאי טַעְמָא אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּקִיּוּם הַגֵּט אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים

 

All of it was written in my presence, and half of it was signed in my presence:

R. Hisda said: Even if two testify about the second signature it is invalid.

What is the reason? Either he must completely uphold the get or completely follow the rabbinic enactment.

 

R. Hisda points out that even if two witnesses testify that the second signature is valid, the get, about which the agent said only half, i.e. one signature, was done in his presence, is invalid. Either the get is validated by external testimony on both signatures, or the get is validated by the agent saying he saw both signatures (the rabbinic enactment). The get cannot be validated by witnesses testifying about one signature and the agent making a declaration about the other. No mixing and matching here folks!

 

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ אָמַר חַד כָּשֵׁר הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי פָּסוּל

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא אֲפִילּוּ הוּא וְאַחֵר מְעִידִין עַל חֲתִימַת יַד שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל

מַאי טַעְמָא אָתוּ לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא וְקָא נָפֵיק נְכֵי רִיבְעָא דְמָמוֹנָא אַפּוּמָּא דְּחַד סָהֲדָא

 

Rava raised a difficulty: Is there anything that if one says its valid and now two say that it is valid it is invalid?!

Rather Rava said: Even if he (the agent) and another testify about the second signature, it is invalid.

What is the reason? They might come to confuse this with upholding regular documents and extract of the money on the basis of one witness.

 

Rava points out that what R. Hisda said does not make sense. If the agent can testify about the get and he is a single witness, then why can t we have two witnesses testify about the second signature.

Rava therefore tweaks R. Hisda s statement. Even if the agent and another witness testify that the second signature is valid (the agent is not saying he saw it being signed, he just recognizes the handwriting), the get is invalid. The problem is that if this were a monetary document we could have a problem. Let s say one signee testifies that the signature is his. And then he joins with another witness to testify concerning the authenticity second signature. This one witness is essentially doing of the work in validating a document. This is not allowed, and therefore we cannot allow a similar situation with regard to signing a get.

 

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ אִיהוּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא כָּשֵׁר הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא חַד בַּהֲדֵיהּ פָּסוּל

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אֲפִילּוּ אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא עֵד שֵׁנִי פָּסוּל מַאי טַעְמָא אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּקִיּוּם הַגֵּט אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים

 

Rav Ashi raises a difficulty: Is there any case in which if he had been able to complete his words, the get would be valid, and now that one is with him, it is invalid.

Rather Rav Ashi said: Even if he is the second witness it is invalid. What is the reason? Either he must completely uphold the get or completely follow the rabbinic enactment.

 

Rav Ashi raises a difficulty very similar to the one Rava himself raised. If the agent had been able to complete his words, he could have validated the get himself. Now that he can t, why should the fact that he has another person to corroborate half of his statement make his statement less reliable?

Therefore, Rav Ashi resolves that the mishnah can even refer to a case where the agent himself is the second witness. The agent testifies that the first signee signed with her in mind and that he is the second witness. Rav Ashi explains, as did R. Hisda above, that either one follows the normal way of upholding a get both signatures must be verified either by the signee or by two other witnesses, or one follows the rabbinic enactment, the agent testifies about both signatures. No mixing and matching!