Gittin 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Elazar [as proof of their view]:

There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was ill

and nearing death,

and she said: “Let it be given

exact page location")

as my jewelry—

jewelry—

to my daughters.” And she

was worth

twelve maneh, and she died

afterward.

And the Sages upheld her words

and gave everything to her daughters, on the basis of her statement.

He said to them

Rabbi Elazar:

The sons of Rokhel

are wicked people. Would that

their mother bury them—he cursed them, so that they would not come to mind and would not be mentioned in the beit-midrash. Since they were wicked, they were not mentioned in the beit-midrash, and the Sages did not scrutinize their mother’s bequest. Therefore, no proof may be derived from them.

From this point, they explain the dispute between the tannaim differently:

In the case of a healthy person—as was already mentioned—everyone agrees that “take” is not equivalent to “acquire.” The beraita is speaking only of a person on his deathbed, and their dispute depends on the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Sages. This is how they understand it:

The first tanna,

who says that the money returns to the sender if he is still alive, holds

like Rabbi Elazar,

who says that a person on his deathbed and a healthy person are alike, and both require an act of acquisition. Therefore, his statement “take” is not equivalent to “acquire.”

And Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva,

who say that the money returns to the sender’s heirs,

also—

also hold—

like Rabbi

Elazar.

They add:

“Even though he died”—

the sender died—

we do not say—

we do not say:

“It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.”

And there are those who say—

those who say that the money is to be given to the heirs of the person to whom it was sent—hold

like the Sages,

who maintain that the words of a person on his deathbed are considered as though they had been written and delivered. Even if the sender did not die, the money is given to the recipient’s heirs, so long as the sender did not retract his instructions.

And Rabbi Judah the Nasi, who said in the name of Rabbi Meir:

It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased, holds

like Rabbi Elazar,

who says that a person on his deathbed requires an act of acquisition, like a healthy person. Therefore, if he did not die, the money returns to the sender.

However—

but—

where he died—

if he died—

we say: “It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.”

The money is then given to the person to whom it was sent or to his heirs.

And the Sages say: “They divide,”

that is because

they are uncertain

regarding a gift from a person on his deathbed whether the halakha is like Rabbi Elazar or like the Sages. Even when the sender died, they are uncertain whether it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased or not. Therefore, they ruled that the money is divided, as with any money whose ownership is uncertain, regarding which the Sages rule that the parties divide it.

And here,

in Babylonia,

they said: “Shuda is preferable”—

it is preferable to give the money in accordance with the agent’s assessment than to divide it.

And Rabbi Shimon the Nasi

indeed

the incident came to teach us—

he came to teach us through the report of an incident.

The Gemara now clarifies Rabbi Shimon’s status:

It was raised as a dilemma—

the scholars of the study hall were uncertain:

Rabbi Shimon the Nasi:

Was he truly

a Nasi? Or

perhaps

he stated it in the name of the Nasi—

he said it in the name of a Nasi?

And they resolve it:

Come and hear—

come and hear from

what Rav Yosef said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon the Nasi.”

This indicates that he was a Nasi! But the Gemara does not accept this proof:

And it still remains a question for you—even after Rav Yosef’s statement was cited, you must still be uncertain:

“Was he a Nasi, or did he state it in the name of the Nasi?”

And the Gemara concludes:

Teyku—

the question remains unresolved.

And it discusses the substance of Rav Yosef’s statement:

The issue itself: Rav Yosef said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon the Nasi,”

who said that the money returns to the sender’s heirs.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But we hold—

is it not accepted as halakha

that the words of a person on his deathbed are considered as though they had been written and delivered—

are they not considered so? If so, even if the sender did not die, the money should be given to the recipient or to his heirs. The answer is:

Rav Yosef establishes it—

he establishes it [the beraita]

as referring to a healthy person

who sent it [and not to a person on his deathbed].

The Gemara challenges this:

But—

yet Rabbi Shimon the Nasi

said: “To the sender’s heirs!”

This implies that after he sent it, he died.

“And we hold that it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.”

If so, Rabbi Shimon the Nasi is also speaking of a case in which the sender died.

And it answers:

Read—

read in the beraita, in Rabbi Shimon’s statement,

“The money returns to the sender.”

Do not read “to the sender’s heirs,” because the case does not involve someone who died.

We have returned to you, chapter “The One Who Brings a Get,” first chapter

Introduction to the Mishna

Our Mishna returns to explain what we learned at the beginning of the first chapter,

that every get that comes from overseas requires the agent who brings it to testify concerning it,

saying: "

It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence."

According to Rava,

the reason is

that there is concern that in the future witnesses will not be readily available to validate the signatures on the get,

and therefore they instituted that the agent should say: "

It was signed in my presence."

And they instituted that he should be believed,

even though he is only one witness.

And so that people would not come to err and say that all other documents as well can be validated on the basis of only one witness,

the Sages instituted that the agent who brings the get must also say: "

It was written in my presence,"

so that it would be evident to everyone that this concerns validation of the get,

and not the ordinary validation of documents.

And Rabba has an additional reason for this matter,

because there is concern that the husband will later challenge the validity of the get,

claiming that the get was not written for the sake of the woman,

and therefore they required the agent to clarify for us that the writing and the signing were performed for her sake.

Our Mishna deals with an agent who did not properly make the declaration "

It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,"

in several ways:

A.

An agent who did not say in full "

It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence"

but testified only concerning the writing,

or only concerning the signing,

the get is invalid.

Mishna:

With regard to one who brings a get from overseas and says, "It was written in my presence," but does not say, "It was signed in my presence,"

or he said "

It was signed in my presence," but did not say, "It was written in my presence"—

the get is invalid.

B. An agent who testified concerning the writing and concerning the signing, but not concerning the entire writing or not concerning the entire signing. For example, if he said, "

It was all written in my presence, and half of it was signed in my presence

of the get"—that is, one of the two witnesses who signed the get signed in his presence—or if he said, "

Half of it was written in my presence,"

as will be explained in the Gemara, what is meant by half of a get—"

and all of it was signed in my presence," it is invalid.

C.

One says, "It was written in my presence," and one says, "It was signed in my presence"; it is invalid.

This matter is explained in the Gemara in two ways:

The first possibility is that only one of the two was an agent, and he testified, "It was written in my presence," but did not testify concerning the signing; the second was merely a witness, not an agent of the get, but he validated the signing. Consequently, concerning the signing we have only the testimony of one witness who is not an agent and is not trustworthy to validate the signatures, since he is only one witness [who is not an agent].

The second possibility is that both were agents, and nevertheless the get is invalid, since the witness who testifies, "It was signed in my presence," did not say, "It was written in my presence." Therefore, there remains concern that people will err and confuse this with the validation of documents, saying that documents can be validated on the basis of the testimony of only one witness; therefore, the get is invalid.

D.

Two say, "It was written in our presence," and one says, "It was signed in my presence"; it is invalid.

Here too, the Gemara presents two ways of understanding the case:

The first possibility is that none of them were agents, in which case each element of the testimony is lacking: either "It was written in my presence" is lacking, or "It was signed in my presence" is lacking.

The second possibility is that all of them were agents. Even so, it is invalid, because the one who testifies concerning the signing did not testify, "It was written in my presence," and there is still concern that this will be confused with the validation of documents.

And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid.

In the last case [the fourth], he certainly deems it valid. The Gemara will explain whether he also deems it valid in the third case, in which one says, "It was written in my presence," and one says, "It was signed in my presence."

E.

One says, "It was written in my presence," and two say, "It was signed in our presence";

according to everyone,

it is valid.

The Gemara explains this.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, concerning the first case: He said, "It was written in my presence, but not signed in my presence"; it is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need this too?!

We already learned it once!

For we learned this law in the first chapter.

As we learned:

One who brings a get from overseas must say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence"!

And if so, it is obvious that if he did not make this entire declaration in full, the get is invalid.

And we answer:

If it were derived from that one,

from the Mishna of the first chapter alone,

I would have said

that one who brings a get

must

indeed say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence," but this is only the law ab initio. However,

if he did not say it,

after the fact it would be valid. Therefore,

it teaches us

our Mishna that if he did not say both "It was written in my presence" and "It was signed in my presence," the get is invalid.

We learned in the Mishna, concerning the second case: "

Half of it was written in my presence, and all of it was signed in my presence"; it is invalid.

And we inquire:

Which half?

Which half is being discussed?

If you say it is the first half

of the get, and he testifies that it was written in his presence, this is difficult: Why is it invalid?

But Rabbi Elazar said: Even if he wrote in it

in the get

only one line,

one line,

for her sake,

in the presence of the agent—and this is the first line of the get, in which the names of the man and the woman and the date are written—

he no longer needs

the agent to see the continuation of the get being written in his presence.

And if so, why is it invalid when he testified concerning the first half that it was written in his presence? Is it not sufficient for him to see only the first line in order to testify concerning it?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

The reason it is invalid when he testifies, "Half of it was written in my presence," is specifically when he testified concerning

the last half.

But if the first half was written in his presence, it is valid, even if only the first line was written in his presence.

We learned in the Mishna:

All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence; it is invalid!

Rav Ḥisda said:

The reason it is invalid when the agent testifies concerning only one signature is

even

when

two testify that the signature of the second

witness is genuine; nevertheless, the get is

invalid.

What is the reason?

Either the entire matter must be through validation of the get,

by witnesses who testify that the signatures are genuine, thereby validating the get as they validate all documents.

Or the entire matter must be through the Sages' enactment,

that the agent testify concerning both signatures, "It was signed in my presence."

But here, where the agent testifies concerning one signature and two witnesses testify concerning the other signature, the get is invalid because the agent is not precise in his words when the entire testimony is not established through him.

Rava challenged him: Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that if

one

person

gave the entire testimony—for example, if the agent had said only, "Both signatures were made in my presence"—it would be

valid. But

if

now there are two,

there are two witnesses concerning the second signature [which would seemingly be preferable], it should be

invalid?!