Gittin 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava said:

The novelty of the Mishna's law, "Half of it was signed in my presence," is that

even

if

he,

the agent,

and

another

witness

join and

testify [

together, as though they were two witnesses from the marketplace]

concerning the signature of the second witness—it is nevertheless

invalid:

the get is invalid!

nevertheless!

What is the reason?—

A decree, due to the concern that it will come to be confused with the validation of ordinary documents.

That is, since in a similar case involving the validation of ordinary documents the validation is invalid, as the reason will be explained below, if we validate such a get, there is concern that people will confuse the two and say that such validation is also valid for ordinary documents.

This is the case: In validating a monetary document, one of the witnesses comes and says, "This is my handwriting." He is trusted as two witnesses concerning his own handwriting, and thereby the signature of the first witness is validated. With regard to the signature of the second witness, another witness from the marketplace comes and joins the first witness who appeared before us, and together they testify concerning the second signature.

Validation of a monetary document in this manner is invalid, because

“three quarters of the money” emerges,

since “all but one quarter of the money” [that is, three quarters of the money recorded in the document] passes from the borrower to the lender

on the basis of one witness,

according to the statement of one witness, who testifies exclusively concerning his own signature and also testifies concerning the additional signature together with one other witness.

This is not in accordance with the law, because the Torah states: "A matter shall be established on the testimony of two witnesses." This implies that one half of the money concerning which the two witnesses testify is established on the basis of this witness, and the other half of the money is established on the basis of the second witness.

Here, however, three quarters of the money emerge on the basis of one witness, because the witness who testified concerning his own signature thereby established half of the validation, and in addition participated in validating the second signature, taking half of the share in its validation. Thus, he established three quarters of the validation, while the other witness established only one quarter of the validation. Consequently, three quarters of the money emerge through one witness, and one quarter through the second witness.

Therefore, Rava also invalidated the case in which the agent of the get testified concerning one signature, and joined another person to validate the second one. Here too, it resembles a case in which three quarters of the validation are performed on the basis of one person—the agent—and one quarter through the other witness. Therefore, here too it is invalid, by decree due to the validation of documents.

Rav Ashi challenged him: Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that if he himself completed the entire statement, it would be valid,

for if he testified, "It was signed in my presence," concerning everything, it would be valid. But

now, when there is another person together with him,

another witness joined him concerning the second witness's signature—would this detract from it and make it

invalid?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

The novelty of the Mishna's ruling, "Half of it was signed in my presence"—invalid—is that

even if the agent says

concerning one signature, "It was signed in my presence," and concerning the second signature he says:

I am the second witness,

and this is my signature, nevertheless he is

invalid.

What is the reason?—

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

by witnesses, as with the validation of all documents,

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

through an agent who says, "It was signed in my presence"!

Rava and Rav Ashi raise another objection to Rav Ḥisda from our Mishna:

We learned: "All of it was written in my presence, and half of it was signed in my presence"; it is invalid.

And it is precise to infer:

The other “half,”

the second half of the signatures on the get—that is, the second signature, concerning which he did not testify that it was signed in his presence—

what are the circumstances?

How is it being discussed?—

If you say that there is no one testifying concerning it at all—

that there is no testimony whatsoever concerning the second witness's signature—then it is obvious that the get is invalid!

For

now,

at this point, as we learned in the Mishna, "

One says, 'It was written in my presence,' and one says, 'It was signed in my presence': This one testifies concerning all the writing, and that one testifies concerning all the signing"—

and together we have testimony concerning "It was written in my presence" and "It was signed in my presence," and nevertheless

it is invalid.

Half—

when we have testimony concerning only half of the signatures, since the only testimony we have is, "Half of it was signed in my presence"—

is it necessary to say so?!

Is it necessary to state that it is invalid?!

Rather,

necessarily, there is also some testimony concerning the validation of the second witness's signature, and necessarily our Mishna comes to teach one of the following:

Either as Rava explained—

concerning the second witness's signature, the agent and another person join together to testify concerning his signature. Our Mishna comes to teach us that even in this case the get is invalid.

Or as Rav Ashi explained,

concerning the second witness's signature, the agent testifies and says, "I am the second witness." Our Mishna comes to teach us that it is invalid.

And

necessarily, this novelty of the Mishna comes

to exclude the view of Rav Ḥisda!

For if the tanna held as he did, he should have taught us Rav Ḥisda's novelty, which is the greater novelty. And if the tanna did not teach it, even though the entire purpose of the Mishna is to teach a novel matter, this is proof that the tanna of the Mishna

[unclear: the source text is corrupted here; its minimum meaning is that the tanna does not hold like Rav Ḥisda]! And one cannot say, on the contrary, that perhaps the tanna's intention in the Mishna really is to teach Rav Ḥisda's novelty, and that "Half of it was signed in my presence" means that there are two witnesses validating the second signature—this is impossible.

For a novelty as great as Rav Ḥisda's should have been stated explicitly by the Mishna as its intent. But the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi are not such great novelties. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Mishna intends to refer to them and to teach that the get is invalid [because otherwise this would be a superfluous Mishna]; the Mishna comes to teach us that it is invalid only in these cases, but not in Rav Ḥisda's case.

Rav Ḥisda could say to you: “And according to your reasoning”—

that every section of the Mishna contains a novelty, and therefore you argue against me that if the tanna held as I do, he should have taught my novelty—if so, according to your reasoning, the statement in the Mishna,

“It was written in my presence, but not signed in my presence,”

why do I need it?

For it is a superfluous Mishna, since later the Mishna says, "All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence; it is invalid." If "Half of it was signed in my presence" is invalid, all the more so when he did not say "It was signed in my presence" at all, it is invalid. What novelty does the Mishna teach us with these words?!

Rather,

necessarily, it must be said that our Mishna follows the pattern of

“not only this but also that.”

The Mishna first states the simpler novelty and then the more pronounced novelty. Even though after stating the greater novelty there is no longer a need to state the simpler one, it is nevertheless the tanna's practice to teach from the simple case to the more novel case.

If so,

here too, regarding what you asked—what is the novelty of "Half of it was signed in my presence," if it comes only to exclude my view?—I can answer that these words of the Mishna contain no novelty. When the Mishna says, "Half of it was signed in my presence," it means that there is no testimony whatsoever concerning the second witness's signature. Since the tanna did not come to teach a novel matter, he need not mention my novelty. You have no proof that he does not hold as I do merely from the fact that he refrained from mentioning my novelty.

And although it is seemingly a superfluous Mishna, as Rava and Rav Ashi objected, this is not difficult, because, as stated, according to your own position too, it is the tanna's practice to teach in the manner of

“not only this but also that,”

teaching from the simple case to the more novel one,

and therefore it can be said that here too the tanna followed this method and did not need to introduce any novelty here.

And I did not intend to say that my innovation is an interpretation of the Mishna; rather, I said this on my own: Even if two witnesses testify concerning the signature of the second witness, the bill of divorce is invalid.

Since the Gemara was discussing the matter of “either the entire validation of the bill of divorce, or the entire enactment of the Sages,” it brings and explains additional matters involving “either this or that.”

The first matter concerns the definition of a private domain with regard to the labor of carrying from one domain to another on Shabbat.

It is prohibited to carry an object on Shabbat from a private domain into a public domain, and likewise in the opposite direction. “

A private domain” is an area enclosed by partitions ten handbreadths high, or a pit ten handbreadths deep, since at its depth it has partitions ten handbreadths high beneath the bottom of the pit.

But if a pit was five handbreadths deep, and a fence five handbreadths high was added around it, the Sages disagreed about whether these two types of partitions combine to create a private domain.

Rav Ḥisda said: “A hollow,”

a pit

five

handbreadths deep,

and a partition five,

meaning that a fence five handbreadths high was erected around the pit,

do not combine

the five handbreadths of the pit’s depth with the five handbreadths of the fence surrounding the pit, to render the pit a private domain enclosed by partitions ten handbreadths high.

Unless

the total height of the partitions surrounding the private domain is

entirely in a partition

ten handbreadths high,

or entirely in a hollow,

a pit ten handbreadths deep. But not half a fence and half the depth of a pit.

Marimar expounded,

disagreeing with Rav Ḥisda:

A hollow five handbreadths deep and a partition five handbreadths high do combine.

And the halakha is—

they combine.

The second matter—the combining of measures in the washing of hands:

Ilfa raised a dilemma: Are hands—

ritually pure by halves, or are they not ritually pure by halves?

The Gemara explains what Ilfa was uncertain about:

What are the circumstances?

What is the case under discussion?

Ilfa was obviously not uncertain about a case in which one washing was performed from a vessel containing half a revi'it of water, as it is clear that such a washing is ineffective.

If you say

that Ilfa’s uncertainty concerned a case in which

two washed

their hands

from a revi'it,

two people,

from a quarter-log,

a vessel containing a full quarter-log of water, and this is what Ilfa meant when he said “by halves”: Two people washed their hands from a vessel full of a quarter-log of water, so that each washed his hands with half the water that had been in the vessel. Since there had initially been a measure of a quarter-log of water in the vessel, Ilfa was uncertain whether washing from this vessel would be effective for both people.

This cannot be so!

For

we learned: From a

vessel full of

a quarter-log

of water, one

may wash the hands of

one

person, or even of two

people!

And if so, it cannot be that this was Ilfa’s uncertainty; rather, it is certainly possible to wash the hands of two people with a single quarter-log of water.

Rather,

perhaps you might say that Ilfa’s uncertainty concerns a case in which

he washes each of his hands individually,

where the person did not wash both hands at once, but washed one hand, dried it, and then washed his other hand; Ilfa was uncertain whether washing the hands is effective even when done one after the other, or whether a person must wash both hands simultaneously, without drying them in between.

It also cannot be that this was Ilfa’s uncertainty.

For

we learned: One who washes one of his hands—

one with a washing

from a vessel

and one with immersion in a river,

his hands are ritually pure.

It stands to reason that if washing one’s hands one after the other is ineffective, then two different types of washing—washing and immersion—would also be ineffective, even if they were performed simultaneously.

And since we explicitly learned that immersion of one hand and washing of the other hand are effective, it is proven that one may wash one hand after the other.

Rather,

perhaps you might say

that he washes half by half

of his hand.

Ilfa was uncertain about a case in which he washed half of his hand, dried it, and then washed another half of his hand: Is this considered a complete washing?

But didn’t the school of Rabbi Yannai say: Hands are not rendered ritually pure by halves!

And if so, there is no possibility of rendering half a hand pure; and it remains difficult: What was Ilfa asking?

And we resolve: In fact, the uncertainty concerns a case in which he washed half of his hand and then another half. If he dried the first half of the hand, there is no doubt that the two washings do not combine into one valid washing.

And it is necessary only in a case where there is sufficient moisture to make another liquid wet.

Some moisture from the water remained on the half of the hand that he had washed, and then he washed another half of the hand; this was Ilfa’s uncertainty.

And we challenge this:

But if there is

on the first hand

sufficient moisture to make another liquid wet, what of it!?

Surely this small amount of moisture that remained is considered insignificant.