Gittin 15a — the Talmud in English

They said to him

the Sages to R. Eleazar [as proof of their words]:

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

and in danger of dying,

and she said, “Let it be given ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

as my necklace

—jewelry—

to my daughter.” And she

was worth

twelve maneh, and she died

afterward.

And the Sages upheld her words

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

He said to them

R. Eleazar:

The sons of Rokhel

are wicked and would that

their mother bury them—he cursed them that they should not come to mind and should not be remembered in the beit-midrash. And 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 can be learned from them.

And from now they explain the dispute of the tannaim in another manner:

In the case of a healthy person—as was already mentioned—in everyone’s view, “go” is not the same as “acquire.” The beraita speaks only of a dangerously ill person, and their dispute depends upon the dispute between R. Eleazar and the Sages. And this is what they hold:

The first tanna,

who says: “They shall return to the sender if he is still alive,” holds

like R. Eleazar,

who says: a dangerously ill person and a healthy person are equal, and both require an act of acquisition. Therefore, his statement “go” is not like “acquire.”

And R. Natan and R. Akiva

who say: “They shall return to the heirs of the sender,”

also

hold

like R.

Eleazar.

And they add:

“And 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,

who say that they are to be given to the heirs of the one to whom they were sent, hold

like the Rabbis,

that the words of a dangerously ill person are considered as though written and delivered. And even if the sender did not die, the money is given to the heirs of the recipient, so long as the sender did not retract.

And R. Judah the Patriarch, who said in the name of R. Meir:

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

like R. Eleazar,

that a dangerously ill person requires an act of acquisition, like a healthy person. Therefore, if he did not die, they shall return to the sender.

However

—but—

where he died

—if he died—

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

And the money shall be given to the one to whom it was sent or to his heirs.

And the Sages say: “They shall divide,”

that is because

it is uncertain to them

with regard to a gift of a dangerously ill person whether the halakha is like R. Eleazar or like the Rabbis. And 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 they divide the money, according to the law of all money of uncertain ownership, concerning which, in the view of the Sages, they divide.

And here

in Babylonia

they said: “Shuda is preferable”

—it is preferable to give the money according to the messenger’s assessment than to divide it.

And R. Shimon the Patriarch

indeed

the incident came to teach us

—he came to teach us an incident.

Now the Gemara clarifies the status of R. Shimon:

It was asked of them

—it was uncertain to them [the scholars of the academy]:

R. Shimon the Patriarch.

Is he truly

a patriarch? Or

perhaps—

he said it in the name of a patriarch

—he said it in the name of a patriarch?

And they resolve it:

Come and hear

—come and hear—from what

Rav Yosef said: “The halakha is like R. Shimon the Patriarch.”

It follows that he was a patriarch! But the Gemara does not accept the proof:

And still, you must inquire—[even after quoting Rav Yosef’s words] you must still be uncertain:

“Is he a patriarch? Or did he say it in the name of a patriarch?”

And the Gemara concludes:

“Teyku”

—the question has not come to a resolution.

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

The substance of the matter: Rav Yosef said: “The halakha is like R. Shimon the Patriarch,”

who said that the money shall return to the heirs of the sender.

And it is difficult:

“But we hold”

—is it not accepted as halakha—

“that the words of a dangerously ill person are considered as though written and delivered”

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

Rav Yosef establishes it

—he establishes it [the beraita]

in the case of a healthy person

who sent [and not in the case of a dangerously ill person].

The Gemara objects:

But

—yet—R. Shimon the Patriarch

said: “To the heirs of the sender!”

And it implies that after he sent, he died.

“And we hold: ‘It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.’”

If so, R. Shimon the Patriarch also speaks of a case in which the sender died .

And it answers:

Teach

—teach in the beraita—in the words of R. Shimon

“They shall return to the sender.”

And do not teach “to the heirs of the sender,” because it is not speaking of one who died.

We shall return to you, chapter “The One Who Brings the First Get.”

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 that the agent who brings it testify about it,

that he say "

before me it was written and before me it was signed."

According to Rava,

the reason is,

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

and therefore they enacted that the agent should say "

before me it was signed."

And they enacted that he should be believed,

despite the fact that he is only one witness.

And so that people would not come to err and say that it is also possible to validate all the other documents through only one witness,

the Sages enacted that the one who brings the get must also say "

before me it was written,"

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

and not ordinary validation of documents.

And according to Rabba there is another reason for the matter,

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

and claim that the get was not written for the sake of the woman,

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

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

before me it was written and before me it was signed,"

in several ways:

A.

An agent who did not say in full "

before me it was written and before me it was signed,"

but testified only about the writing,

or only about the signing,

the get is invalid.

Mishna:

One who brings a get from overseas and said, "Before me it was written," but did not say, "Before me it was signed."

Or he said "

Before me it was signed," but did not say, "Before me it was written" —

the get is invalid.

B. An agent who testified about the writing and about the signing, but not about all of the writing or not about all of the signing. For example: if he said "

Before me it was written in its entirety, and before me half of it was signed

of the get," meaning, before me one of the two witnesses who signed the get signed, or if he said "

Before me half of it was written,"

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

and before me all of it was signed," it is invalid.

C.

One says, "Before me it was written," and one says, "Before me it was signed"; it is invalid.

This matter is explained in the Gemara in two ways:

The first way: only one of the two was an agent, and he testified, "Before me it was written," but did not testify about the signing, while the second is merely a witness, who is not the agent of the get, but rather confirms the signing; and it turns out that 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].

And the second way: both of them were agents, and nevertheless the get is invalid, since the witness who testifies, "Before me it was signed," did not say, "Before me it was written"; therefore there remains the concern that people will come to err and confuse this with validation of documents, and say that it is possible to validate documents through the testimony of only one witness, and therefore the get is invalid.

D.

Two say, "Before us it was written," and one says, "Before me it was signed"; it is invalid.

And also in this case, the Gemara gives two ways in which to establish it:

The first way: if none of them were agents, in which case every testimony is lacking, whether it is lacking "before me it was written" or it is lacking "before me it was signed."

The second way: if all of them were agents, nevertheless it is invalid, because the one who testifies about the signing did not testify, "Before me it was written," and there is still concern of confusion with validation of documents.

And Rabbi Yehuda declares it fit.

In the last case [the fourth], he certainly declares it fit. And in the Gemara it will be explained whether he also declares it fit in the third case, where one says, "Before me it was written," and one says, "Before me it was signed."

E.

One says, "Before me it was written," and two say, "Before us it was signed,"

according to everyone

it is valid.

And the Gemara explains.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna, concerning the first case: he said, "Before me it was written, but not before me it was signed"; it is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

This too, why do I need it!?

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, "Before me it was written and before me it was signed"!

And if so, it is obvious that if he did not say this entire declaration in its entirety, the get is invalid.

And we answer:

If it were only from that one,

from the Mishna of the first chapter alone,

I would have said,

I would have said that the one who brings a get

must

indeed say, "Before me it was written and before me it was signed," but this is only the law ab initio. But

if he did not say it,

after the fact it is valid. Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that if he did not say both "before me it was written" and "before me it was signed," the get is invalid.

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

Before me half of it was written, and before me all of it was signed; it is invalid."

And we inquire about it:

Which half?

Which half is being referred to?

If you say the first half

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

But Rabbi Elazar said: Even if there was written in it only

in the get

one line,

one row,

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 that its first half was written in his presence? After all, it is sufficient for him to see only the first line, so that he can testify about it!?

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

The reason it is invalid when he testifies, "Before me half of it was written," is specifically when he testified about

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:

Before me all of it was written and before me half of it was signed; it is invalid!

Rav Ḥisda said:

The invalidity when the agent testifies only about one signature applies

even

when

two testify concerning the signature of the second,

that it is genuine; nevertheless, the get is

invalid.

What is the reason?

Either it is all through validation of the get,

by witnesses who testify that the signatures are genuine, and thereby validate the get like all documents.

Or it is all through the enactment of the Sages,

that the agent testify concerning both signatures, "Before me it was signed."

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

Rava challenges him: Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that if

one

one

gave the entire testimony—for example, if the agent said only, "Before me both signatures were signed"—it would be

valid. And

if

now, when there are two,

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

invalid!?