Gittin 16b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara proves from this that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, validated [the get] when both of them were agents:

apparently, he holds

Rabbi Yohanan:

two who brought a get from overseas,

and both of them are the husband’s agents,

do not need to say, “Before us it was written and before us it was signed.”

And therefore, even though the agents’ statement was not proper, because one said, “Before me it was written,” and one said, “Before me it was signed”—and this is not a correct statement, because the reason that they instituted [the agent] to say, “Before me it was written,” is in order that people should not err and say: just as the agent alone is believed to say, “Before me it was signed,” so too, in every validation of documents, one witness is believed. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the agent should also say, “Before me it was written,” for through this it is recognizable that this is not a validation of documents, since in validation of documents there is no relevance to discussing the writing; and people will know that in a get there is a special enactment to believe one witness, and they will not derive from a get to the validation of documents.

And when an agent who said, “Before me it was signed,” did not also testify, “Before me it was written,” but the second agent testified to this, there is still concern that people will err and say that only one agent testified about the signatures, and they believed him, and they will err and say that in every validation of documents one witness must be believed. Therefore, the Sages required that specifically the same agent who says, “Before me it was signed,” must also say, “Before me it was written”; then the matter is recognizable, that he is not validating the get, and they will no longer err and say that validation of documents is [possible] through only one witness.

And if so, from the standpoint of the agents’ statement, the get is not valid, because there is no proper statement here. Necessarily, the reason that Rabbi Yohanan validated [the get] when both of them were agents is that he held that with two agents there is no need at all to say, “Before me it was written and signed,” and their entire statement is superfluous; therefore the get is valid.

And the reason that two agents do not need to say, “Before me it was written and signed,” is either in accordance with Rava: that the reason they instituted [the statement] “Before me it was written and signed” is because witnesses are not readily available to validate it, whereas here witnesses are available before us; or in accordance with Rabba: after they learned to write it for its own sake, they did not decree that two agents should say, “Before me it was written and signed,” since this is not common.

Abaye said to

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

But if that is so,

that according to Rabbi Yohanan, with two agents there is no need at all to say, “Before me it was written and signed,”

the latter clause

of our Mishna,

which teaches: Two say, “Before us it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed”—it is invalid; and Rabbi Yehuda validates it.

According to your words, one must say

that the reason

that it is invalid according to the Rabbis is that the latter clause is speaking

when the get does not emerge from the possession of both of them—

that both of them are not agents.

This

if the

get emerges from the possession of both of them—

the Rabbis validate it,

because when both of them are agents, there is no need at all to say, “Before me it was written” and “Before me it was signed.” And if so, surely the Rabbis too will validate it.

He said to him,

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda:

Yes—

indeed, if both of them are agents, the Rabbis will agree that the get is valid.

And Abaye returned and challenged him:

But

after you established the latter clause as speaking when

the get does not emerge from the possession of both of them,

and it is not speaking when both of them are agents, but only one of them is, if so,

over what do they disagree,

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, “Before me it was signed,” and not, “Before me it was written,” but we have the testimony of two witnesses concerning the writing, that it was done properly, nevertheless the get is invalid. For the agent who said, “Before me it was signed” did not testify concerning “Before me it was written,” and people may err and say that for the validation of a document two witnesses are not needed, but one witness is sufficient.

For only through the witness who testifies, “Before me it was signed,” also testifying, “Before me it was written,” is there a distinction that this matter is not similar to the ordinary validation of documents.

And we answer: Actually, the latter clause is speaking as we established it: that both of them are not agents, but there is only one agent, and he testified only, “Before me it was signed,” and not, “Before me it was written,” and the get ought to be invalid.

And in truth,

one master holds—

the Rabbis—

we decree lest people come to confuse it,

and say that it is effective

in the validation of ordinary documents, [through] one witness.

Since the agent who testified about the signature did not testify about the writing, people may err and say that the agent validated the get, and that in every validation of documents one witness is effective. Therefore, the Rabbis invalidated the get, even when there is clarification by two witnesses concerning the writing.

And one master holds,

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

we do not decree

that they will come to confuse it with the validation of ordinary documents, because since people see that two witnesses are brought concerning the writing, it is proven to them that here we are not dealing with the validation of documents, and they will not err and say that one witness is sufficient for the validation of documents.

There is another version; some recite it:

thus

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

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

even

when the

get emerges from the possession of both of them,

so that even when both of them are agents, the law is also that the get is

invalid.

And the reason is as explained: since the agent who testified, “Before me it was signed,” did not testify concerning the writing, there is concern that people will err and confuse it with the validation of documents, and say that one witness is sufficient for the validation of documents. Only when the agent who says, “Before me it was signed,” also says, “Before me it was written,” is this a distinguishing feature that this is a special enactment of the Sages concerning a get.

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

Apparently, he holds

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

two

who are agents

who brought a get from overseas must say, “Before us it was

written and before us it was signed,”

and therefore here, since they did not make the statement in accordance with the enactment of the Sages, the get is invalid.

And the reason that even two agents must say it is that this version holds in accordance with Rabba: the reason that they must say, “Before me it was written and signed,” is because of “for its own sake”; and even at a time when they had learned, the Sages decreed lest the matter return to its disorder. And with two agents as well, they decreed lest the matter return to its disorder; therefore even two must say, “Before me it was written and signed for its own sake.”

But according to Rava, certainly two who brought a get do not need to say, “Before me it was written and signed.”

Abaye said to

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

But if that is so,

that two agents who bring a get also need to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,”

the latter clause

of our Mishna, which

teaches: Two say, “Before us it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed”—it is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda validates it.

According to your words, it is possible to say

even if the

get emerges from the possession of both of them,

the Rabbis invalidated it!?

when both of them are agents?

He said to him,

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

Yes!

Indeed, even when both of them are agents, the get is invalid according to the Rabbis. For the agent who said, “Before me it was signed,” did not testify, “Before me it was written,” but others did; and the Rabbis hold that even in such a case there is concern that people will confuse it with the validation of documents and say that validation of documents is [possible] through one witness. Only if the agent who testified concerning the signature also testified, “Before me it was written,” is there a distinction that this is not validation of documents, but rather an enactment of the Sages concerning a get.

And it is obvious to the Gemara that according to this reasoning Rabbi Yehuda too agrees, and holds that an agent who testified, “Before me it was signed,” while two witnesses who are agents testified, “Before me it was written”—the get is invalid, since there is concern that people will confuse it and err and say that validation of documents is also [possible] through one witness.

And 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 one say, “Before me it was written and signed” regarding a get that comes from overseas is

because they 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 get, they too must say, “Before me it was written and signed.” Therefore, in the latter clause it is invalid because the one testifying about the signature is not testifying about the writing.

And one master holds—

Rabbi Yehuda, who validated it in the latter clause, held that the reason they instituted that one say, “Before me it was written and signed,” 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 get—and witnesses capable of validating it are here—there is no enactment at all of “Before me it was written and signed.” Therefore Rabbi Yehuda validated it in the latter clause of the Mishna, and even though the agents did not say “Before me it was written and before me it was signed” properly, the get is valid, because their testimony is not needed at all.

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

Let us say that

the dispute

between Rabba and Rava

over why they instituted that one say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” is a dispute

between tannaim—

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda!? The Rabbis hold like Rabba, that the reason they must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” is because perhaps the husband will come and challenge that the get was not written for its own sake; therefore, even when two agents brought the get, they must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” and therefore in the Mishna it is invalid.

And Rabbi Yehuda held like Rava, that the reason they must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” is because perhaps the husband will challenge that the get is forged, and witnesses will not be readily available to validate it. Therefore, with two agents, when witnesses are before us, they do not need to say, “Before us it was written and signed.” And therefore in the Mishna, even though they did not say it properly, the get is valid, because their testimony is not needed at all.

And the Gemara answers:

No!

There is no need to say that the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed in this matter.

Rather,

Rava

explains that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is

according to the first version,

namely, that with two agents there is no need to say, “Before me it was written and signed,” and necessarily the Mishna is speaking when both of them are not agents.

And in the first clause, where one says, “Before me it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed,” since only one is an agent and the other is merely one witness, the get is certainly invalid.

And in the latter clause, where one says, “Before me it was signed,” and he is the agent, while two who are not agents say, “Before me it was written,” it is invalid, since the agent who testifies concerning the signature does not also testify concerning the writing; people will come to confuse it with the validation of documents and say that validation of documents is through one.

And Rabbi Yehuda, who validated it, held that since there are two witnesses concerning the writing, this is a sufficient distinction so that they will not derive from a get to the validation of documents. Therefore the get is valid, because they will not confuse it with the validation of documents.

And Rabba would say to you:

I will establish the Mishna as the latter version established it, that the Mishna is speaking when both of them are agents, and this is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis:

Everyone

holds that

we require

one to say, “Before me it was written and signed,” because of

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

that a get must be written for its own sake,

and with a decree lest the matter return to its disorder

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

they disagree.

For one master holds—

the Rabbis—

we decree

that with two agents they must say, “Before me it was written and signed,” even though there is no concern of a challenge concerning forgery, since there are witnesses here before us; nevertheless, they must say, “Before me it was written and signed,” lest the husband challenge that the get was not written for its own sake.

And even after they had learned that a get must be written for its own sake, the Sages decreed that they should continue to say, “Before me it was written and signed for its own sake,” lest they return and forget that it must be written for its own sake. And for this reason, in the Mishna, since they did not say it properly—the agent who testified concerning the signature did not testify concerning the writing—and there is concern of confusion, the get is invalid.

And one master holds—

Rabbi Yehuda—

we do not decree.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that when both of them are agents, after they had learned that it must be for its own sake, they do not need to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” and we do not decree lest the matter return to its disorder and they forget that it must be for its own sake. And the reason that they do not decree with two agents is that two agents bringing a get is an uncommon matter, and with an uncommon matter the Rabbis did not decree.

But certainly, one agent who brought a get, even after they had learned that it must be for its own sake, must say, “Before me it was written and signed for its own sake,” because they decreed lest they return and forget that it must be for its own sake. Only with two agents, since this is an uncommon matter, did the Rabbis not decree concerning it, and they do not need to say it. And for this reason Rabbi Yehuda validated it, because their statement is not needed at all; therefore the get is valid.

And the Gemara challenges: If the reason that Rabbi Yehuda validates it is because he holds that when both of them are agents their testimony is not needed at all, if so,

Rabbi Yehuda should also disagree in the first clause,

in the case where one says, “Before me it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed,” so that Rabbi Yehuda should validate it since both of them are agents—and when there are two agents, there is no need at all to say, “Before me it was written and signed.”

And the Gemara answers:

This was stated concerning it: Ulla said, Rabbi Yehuda disagreed even in the first case,

where one says, “Before me it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed,” so that the get is valid.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection to Ulla

from a beraita in which it is written:

Rabbi Yehuda validates in this case.

And it is precise from it that specifically in the last case, where two say, “Before us it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed,” Rabbi Yehuda disagreed and validated it; therefore he said that he validates “in this case,”

and not in another!

What, is it not

Rabbi Yehuda’s intention to say that specifically in the latter clause it is valid,

to exclude

the first clause,

one says, “Before me it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed,”

in which case he did not validate it—and not as Ulla said, that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed even in the first case!?

And Ulla answers:

No,

not to exclude the first clause and say that in the first clause Rabbi Yehuda invalidates it! Rather, in truth, even in the first clause Rabbi Yehuda validates it; and what Rabbi Yehuda said, “He validates in this case,” means

to exclude [the case of] one who says, “Before me it was signed,”

the get,

but did not

say

“Before me it was written.”

And this law is seemingly obvious: the get is invalid according to everyone, since we have only “Before me it was signed.” What, then, did Rabbi Yehuda come to teach us by saying that “in this case” he does not validate it?

Rather,

it might have entered your mind to say, since

we see from this that Rabbi Yehuda disagreed in the latter clause, that

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

perhaps he also did not decree the decree of

“lest they come to confuse it with the validation of ordinary documents”

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

he likewise did not decree,

and in the case where one says, “Before me it was signed,” and did not say, “Before me it was written,” the get would be valid.

For all that necessitated saying, “Before me it was written,” was as a distinction so that they would not confuse it with the validation of documents; and if Rabbi Yehuda does not hold of this decree, lest they confuse it and say that validation of documents is through one witness, it should be valid even when they did not say, “Before me it was written” at all.

It teaches us

that Rabbi Yehuda validates specifically “in this case”—where one says, “Before me it was written,” and one says, “Before me it was signed”—but not when he did not say, “Before me it was written” at all, because concerning this decree, lest they confuse it with [validation through] one witness, Rabbi Yehuda agrees.

It was also stated according to the latter version,

that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda is when both of them are agents.

For

Rav Yehuda said: Two who brought a get from overseas have entered into the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

And it is proven that they disagree even when both of them are agents.

Rabba bar bar Hana became ill,

he fell ill.

Rav Yehuda and Rabba came in to him—

they came to him

to inquire after him,

to ask about his welfare.

They asked him: Two who brought a get from overseas—

must they say, “Before us it was written and before us it was signed,” or do they not need to?

They were uncertain whether the law follows the first version, that with two agents there is no need to say it, or the latter version.

He said to them: They do not need

to say, “Before us it was written and signed.” For

what if they were to say, “Before us he divorced her”

in overseas,

would they not be believed?

Therefore they do not need to say anything more. And if so, any two who bring a get do not need to say, “Before us it was written and before us it was signed,” in accordance with the first version.