Gittin 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara proves from this that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, validated the case when both of them are agents:

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

When two people bring a bill of divorce from overseas,

and both of them are the husband’s agents,

they need not say: “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.”

And therefore, although the agents’ declaration was not proper—for one said, “It was written in my presence,” and the other said, “It was signed in my presence,” which is not the proper declaration—the reason that the Sages instituted that one must say, “It was written in my presence,” was so that people would not err and say: Just as the agent alone is trusted to say, “It was signed in my presence,” so too, in every validation of documents, one witness is trusted. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the agent must also say, “It was written in my presence,” since this makes it apparent that this is not ordinary validation of documents: in validation of documents, there is no relevance to discussing the writing. Thus, people will know that in the case of a bill of divorce there is a special enactment granting credibility to one witness, and they will not derive the law of validation of documents from the law of a bill of divorce.

And when an agent who said, “It was signed in my presence,” did not also testify, “It was written in my presence,” but the second agent testified to this, there is still concern that people will err and say that only one agent testified concerning the signatures and he was believed, and they will mistakenly conclude that in every validation of documents one witness is to be believed. Therefore, the Sages required specifically that the same agent who says, “It was signed in my presence,” must also say, “It was written in my presence.” Then it is apparent that he is not validating the bill of divorce, and they will no longer err and say that validation of documents can be performed by only one witness.

If so, from the standpoint of the agents’ declaration, the bill of divorce is invalid, since the declaration here was not proper. Necessarily, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan validated the case when both were agents is that he held that when there are two agents, there is no need at all to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”; their entire declaration is superfluous, and therefore the bill of divorce is valid. [

And the reason that two agents need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is either in accordance with Rava: the reason for the enactment to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is that witnesses are not readily available to validate it, whereas here witnesses are present before us; or in accordance with Rabba: after people learned to write a bill of divorce for its own sake, the Sages did not decree that two agents must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” since such a case is uncommon.]

Abaye said

to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

If that is so,

that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, when there are two agents there is no need at all to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

the latter clause

of our Mishna,

which teaches: “Two say, ‘It was written in our presence,’ and one says, ‘It was signed in my presence,’ it is invalid; and Rabbi Yehuda validates it.”

According to your words, it must be said

that the reason

it is invalid according to the Rabbis is that the latter clause is speaking of a case

in which the bill of divorce is not in the possession of both of them—

that the two are not both agents.

But

if the

bill of divorce is in the possession of both of them—

the Rabbis validate it,

since when both are agents there is no need at all to say, “It was written in my presence” and “It was signed in my presence.” If so, surely the Rabbis too would validate it.

He said to him,

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda:

Yes—

indeed, if both are agents, the Rabbis would agree that the bill of divorce is valid.

And Abaye raised an objection to him again:

But

once you have established that the latter clause is speaking of a case in which

the bill of divorce is not in the possession of both of them,

and it is not speaking of a case in which both are agents, but only one of them is an agent, then

over what do they disagree—the Rabbis, who invalidate it, and Rabbi Yehuda, who validates it? Surely the bill of divorce is certainly invalid! For if the agent is one of the two who testified, “It was written in my presence,” but he did not testify, “It was signed in my presence,” then we have no clarification concerning the signature, since only one witness, who is not an agent, said, “It was signed in my presence,” and his statement is of no effect.

the Rabbis who invalidate and Rabbi Yehuda who validates? Surely the get is certainly invalid! For if the agent is one of the two who testified, “Before me it was written,” but he did not testify, “Before me it was signed,” then we have no clarification concerning the signature, because only one witness, who is not an agent, said, “Before me it was signed,” and he is nothing.

And if the agent testified only, “It was signed in my presence,” and not, “It was written in my presence,” while we do have the testimony of two witnesses that the writing was done properly, nevertheless the bill of divorce is invalid. For the agent who said, “It was signed in my presence” did not testify, “It was written in my presence,” and people might err and say that for validation of a document two witnesses are not necessary; one witness suffices.

For it is only when the witness testifying, “It was signed in my presence,” also testifies, “It was written in my presence,” that there is a distinguishing indication that this is not comparable to ordinary validation of documents.

And we answer: Actually, the latter clause is speaking as we established it: the two are not agents; there is only one agent, and he testified only, “It was signed in my presence,” and not, “It was written in my presence,” so the bill of divorce ought to be invalid.

And indeed,

one master holds—

the Rabbis—

we decree lest people come to confuse this

and say that one witness is effective

for the validation of documents in general.

Since the agent who testified concerning the signature did not testify concerning the writing, people might err and say that the agent validated the bill of divorce, and that one witness is effective for every validation of documents. Therefore, the Rabbis invalidated the bill of divorce even when there is clarification from two witnesses concerning the writing.

And one master holds—

Rabbi Yehuda, who validated it, held that since there are two witnesses who clarify that the writing was done properly,

we do not decree

that people will come to confuse this with ordinary validation of documents, because when people see that two witnesses are brought to testify concerning the writing, it is evident to them that this is not validation of documents, and they will not err and say that one witness suffices for validation of documents.

There is another version of the matter, and some say:

this is what

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

What we learned in the first clause of the Mishna, “One says, ‘It was written in my presence,’ and one says, ‘It was signed in my presence,’ it is invalid,” is speaking

even

when the

bill of divorce is in the possession of both of them,

so that even when both are agents, the law is that the bill of divorce is

invalid.

And the reason is as explained: since the agent who testified, “It was signed in my presence,” did not testify concerning the writing, there is concern that people will err and confuse this with validation of documents, and say that one witness suffices for validation of documents. Only when the agent who says, “It was signed in my presence,” also says, “It was written in my presence,” is there a distinguishing indication that this is a special enactment of the Sages concerning a bill of divorce.

Nevertheless, from the fact that Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidated it even when both are agents, the Gemara infers:

Apparently, he holds

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

two

who are agents

who brought a bill of divorce from overseas must say, “It was written in our

presence and it was signed in our presence,”

and therefore here, since they did not make the declaration as instituted by the Sages, the bill of divorce is invalid.

And the reason that even two agents must make the declaration is that this version follows Rabba, who holds that the reason they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is because of the requirement that it be written for its own sake; and even in the period when people had learned to write it for its own sake, the Sages decreed lest the matter revert to its previous disorder. They likewise decreed this in the case of two agents, and therefore even two must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” for its own sake.

But according to Rava, certainly two who brought a bill of divorce need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

Abaye said

to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

If that is so,

that two agents who bring a bill of divorce must also say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

the latter clause

of our Mishna, which

teaches: “Two say, ‘It was written in our presence,’ and one says, ‘It was signed in my presence,’ it is invalid; and Rabbi Yehuda validates it.”

According to your words, it is possible to say

even

if the

bill of divorce is in the possession of both of them,

so that both are agents,

the Rabbis invalidate it!?

He said to him,

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

Yes!

Indeed, even if both are agents, the bill of divorce is invalid according to the Rabbis. For the agent who said, “It was signed in my presence,” did not testify, “It was written in my presence”; rather, others did so. The Rabbis hold that even in such a case there is concern that people will confuse this with validation of documents and say that validation of documents is performed by one witness. Only if the agent who testified concerning the signature also testified, “It was written in my presence,” is there a distinguishing indication that this is not validation of documents but rather an enactment of the Sages concerning a bill of divorce.

And it is obvious to the Gemara that according to this reasoning Rabbi Yehuda too agrees, and holds that when an agent testified, “It was signed in my presence,” and two witnesses who are agents testified, “It was written in my presence,” the bill of divorce is invalid, since there is concern that people will confuse the matter and mistakenly say that validation of documents may also be performed by one witness.

Therefore, the Gemara asks:

Over what do they disagree?

And we answer:

One master holds

the Rabbis held that the reason the Sages instituted that a bill of divorce arriving from overseas must be accompanied by the declaration, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is

because people are not expert in writing it for its own sake,

and this is Rabba’s reason. According to this reason, if two agents bring a bill of divorce, they too must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” Therefore, in the latter clause it is invalid because the declaration was not proper: the one who testified concerning the signature did not testify concerning the writing.

And one master holds—

Rabbi Yehuda, who validated it in the latter clause, held that the reason the Sages instituted the declaration, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it,

and this is Rava’s reason. According to this reason, certainly, if two agents brought the bill of divorce—and witnesses readily available to validate it are present here—the enactment requiring the declaration, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” does not apply at all. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda validated it in the latter clause of the Mishna. Even though the agents did not make the declaration properly, saying, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” the bill of divorce is valid, since their testimony is not needed at all.

And according to this explanation, we ask concerning the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda:

Shall we say that

the dispute between

Rabba and Rava

concerning the reason why the Sages instituted the declaration, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is a dispute

between tanna’im—the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda!? The Rabbis hold like Rabba: the reason they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is lest the husband come and challenge the bill of divorce, claiming that it was not written for its own sake. Therefore, even when two agents brought the bill of divorce, they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and therefore in the Mishna it is invalid.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rava: the reason they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” is lest the husband challenge it as forged, and witnesses will not be readily available to validate it. Therefore, when there are two agents and witnesses are present before us, they need not say, “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.” Consequently, in the Mishna, even though they did not make the declaration properly, the bill of divorce is valid, since their testimony is not needed at all.

And the Gemara answers:

The Gemara answers:

No!

There is no need to say that this is the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.

Rather,

Rava

explains that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is

according to the first version,

namely, that when there are two agents there is no need to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” Necessarily, the Mishna is speaking of a case in which both are not agents.

And in the first clause, where one says, “It was written in my presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence,” since only one is an agent and the other is merely one witness, the bill of divorce is certainly invalid.

And in the latter clause, where one—the agent—says, “It was signed in my presence,” and two who are not agents say, “It was written in my presence,” it is invalid, since the agent who testifies concerning the signature does not also testify concerning the writing. People will therefore come to confuse this with validation of documents and say that validation of documents is performed by one person.

And Rabbi Yehuda, who validated it, held that since there are two witnesses concerning the writing, this is a sufficient distinguishing indication that they will not derive the law of validation of documents from the law of a bill of divorce. Therefore, the bill of divorce is valid, since they will not confuse it with validation of documents.

And Rabba could say to you:

I will establish the Mishna as the later version established it, namely, that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which both are agents, and this is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis:

Everyone

holds that

we require

the declaration, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” because of the requirement that it be written

for its own sake. And what are we dealing with here? After people had learned

that a bill of divorce must be written for its own sake,

and because of a decree lest the matter revert to its previous disorder

and they forget that it must be written for its own sake—in this

they disagree.

For one master holds—

the Rabbis—

we decree

that even when there are two agents they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” even though there is no concern that the husband will challenge it as forged, since witnesses are present before us. Nevertheless, they must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” lest the husband challenge it, claiming that the bill of divorce was not written for its own sake.

And even after people learned that a bill of divorce must be written for its own sake, the Sages decreed that they should continue to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence” for its own sake, lest they revert and forget that it must be written for its own sake. Therefore, in the Mishna, since they did not make the declaration properly—the agent who testified concerning the signature did not testify concerning the writing—and there is concern that people will confuse the matter, the bill of divorce is invalid.

And one master holds—

Rabbi Yehuda—

we do not decree.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that when both are agents, after people learned that it must be written for its own sake, they need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and we do not decree lest the matter revert to its previous disorder and they forget that it must be written for its own sake. The reason that they did not decree this in the case of two agents is that two agents bringing a bill of divorce is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree in the case of an uncommon matter.

But certainly, when one agent brings a bill of divorce, even after people learned that it must be written for its own sake, he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence” for its own sake, because the Sages decreed lest they revert and forget that it must be written for its own sake. Only in the case of two agents, which is an uncommon matter, did the Sages not decree, and they need not make the declaration. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda validated it, since their declaration is not needed at all, and consequently the bill of divorce is valid.

And the Gemara asks: If the reason Rabbi Yehuda validates it is that he holds that when both are agents their testimony is not needed at all, then

Rabbi Yehuda should also disagree in the first clause,

in the case where one says, “It was written in my presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence.” Rabbi Yehuda should validate it because both are agents, and when there are two agents there is no need at all to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

And the Gemara answers:

It was likewise stated concerning this: Ulla said, Rabbi Yehuda disagreed even in the first clause,

where one says, “It was written in my presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence”; the bill of divorce is valid.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection to Ulla

from a beraita in which it is written:

Rabbi Yehuda validates this case.

And it can be inferred from it that specifically in the final case, where two say, “It was written in our presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence,” Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and validated it. Therefore, he said that he validates it “in this case,”

but not in another case!

Is that not

what Rabbi Yehuda intended to say: specifically in the latter clause it is valid,

to exclude

the first clause,

where one says, “It was written in my presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence,”

in which case he did not validate it, contrary to Ulla, who said that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed even in the first clause!?

Ulla answers:

No,

it is not to exclude the first clause and say that Rabbi Yehuda invalidates it. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda indeed validates it even in the first clause. And when Rabbi Yehuda said that he validates “in this case,” he intended

to exclude the case where one says, “It was signed in my presence,”

concerning the bill of divorce,

but did not

say

“It was written in my presence.”

This law would seem obvious: the bill of divorce is invalid according to everyone, since we have only the testimony, “It was signed in my presence.” What, then, is Rabbi Yehuda teaching us by saying that he does not validate “in this case”?

Rather,

it might have entered your mind that, since

we see from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed in the latter clause that

Rabbi Yehuda did not decree lest the matter revert to its previous disorder,

perhaps he likewise did not decree the concern

that people might come to confuse this with ordinary validation of documents

and say that for every validation of documents it suffices to validate it through one witness;

he too did not decree

this, and in the case where one says, “It was signed in my presence,” but did not say, “It was written in my presence,” the bill of divorce would be valid.

For the entire reason they required the declaration, “It was written in my presence,” was as a distinguishing indication so that people would not confuse this with validation of documents. If Rabbi Yehuda does not accept this decree lest people confuse the matter and say that validation of documents can be performed by one witness, the bill of divorce should be valid even when they did not say at all, “It was written in my presence.”

He therefore teaches us

that Rabbi Yehuda validates specifically “in this case”—where one says, “It was written in my presence,” and one says, “It was signed in my presence”—but not when they did not say at all, “It was written in my presence,” because Rabbi Yehuda agrees with this decree, lest people confuse the matter and rely on one witness.

It was also stated in accordance with the later version,

that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerns a case where both are agents.

Rav Yehuda said: “When two bring a bill of divorce from overseas, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.”

This proves that they disagree even when both are agents.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana fell ill,

he became sick.

They entered to him—

there came to him

Rav Yehuda and Rabba to inquire after him,

to ask about his welfare.

They asked him: “When two bring a bill of divorce from overseas—

must they say, ‘It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence,’ or need they not?”

They were uncertain whether the law follows the first version, according to which two agents need not make the declaration, or the later version.

He said to them: “They need not”

say, “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.” For

what if they were to say, ‘He divorced her in our presence’

in overseas,

would they not be believed?

Therefore, they need not say anything more. If so, whenever two bring a bill of divorce, they need not say, “It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence,” in accordance with the first version.