Gittin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

This is a continuation of the section from yesterday.

 

תְּנַן בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ פָּסוּל

אִידַּךְ חֶצְיוֹ הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל הַשְׁתָּא אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם דְּהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ כְּתִיבָה וְהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ חֲתִימָה פָּסוּל חֶצְיוֹ מִיבַּעְיָא

 

It was taught in the mishnah: [If the agent says]: All of it was written in front of me and half of it was signed in front of me it is invalid. What happened with the other half? If we say that no one testified about it at all, now that if one says, It was written in front of me and another says, It was signed in front of me where one testifies about all the writing and the other about all the signing it is invalid, is it even necessary to state about [a case where only] half [of the signatures are testified about].

 

The Talmud brings the mishnah to bolster either Rava s opinion or Rav Ashi s, as we shall see. The mishnah says that if the agent can t say that the whole get was signed in his presence, the get is not valid. If there is no testimony whatsoever about the second signature, then this mishnah is too obvious. For even if one agent testifies about the writing and another about the signing it is invalid. Obviously if no one can testify about all the signing it is invalid.

 

אֶלָּא אוֹ כִּדְרָבָא אוֹ כִּדְרַב אָשֵׁי וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא

 

Rather the mishnah accords either with Rava or R. Ashi and it excludes R. Hisda.

 

The Talmud reads this as a difficulty against R. Hisda. It is not easy to understand this line what exactly is the difficulty? Rashi explains it like this. This line of the mishnah must be teaching something new. It can t be that there is no testimony whatsoever about the second signature for then it would be superfluous (as stated above). But R. Hisda goes too far in saying what innovation there is in this line of the mishnah even if there is full testimony about the second signature, the get is invalid! When there is an extraneous text, a sage has a right to say that it offers an innovation. But from a logical perspective, that innovation should be minimal, not maximal.

 

אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא וּלְטַעְמָיךְ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם לָמָּה לִי אֶלָּא לֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי הָכָא נָמֵי לָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי

 

R. Hisda could say to you: According to your reasoning, why do we need [the line in the mishnah that says], if he says It was written in my presence but not signed in my presence [it is invalid]. Rather, [the mishnah is a case of] this and even this. So too here it is a case of this and even this.

 

R. Hisda says that we can read the mishnah without saying that earlier lines are superfluous. The mishnah lists cases that are increasingly innovative. The earlier line is, admittedly, superfluous. Thus R. Hisda can say that according to the mishnah, not only is a get invalid if one person testifies about the writing and another about the signature, but it is even invalid if one person testifies about the signing and one signature and then joins another witness to testify that he recognizes the second signature.