Commentary for Gittin 132:15

ואי סלקא דעתך מודה רבי יוסי באומר אמרו נפיק מינה חורבה דזימנין דאמר להו לשנים

— No; what Samuel wanted to know was this. [When the husband said to the men], 'write', did he mean their signatures or the Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he meant them to write only the signatures the Get is valid, and therefore he was in doubt. ');">¹⁴</span> — Cannot this be determined from the Mishnah: IF A MAN SAID TO TWO PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, OR IF HE SAID TO THREE, WRITE A GET AND GIVE [IT] TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD WRITE AND DELIVER [IT]? — Here too he was in doubt whether 'WRITE' meant their signatures or the actual Get. Surely it is obvious that it must be the Get, from what we read in the later clause: R. JOSE SAID, WE SAID TO THE MESSENGER, WE TOO HAVE IT ON TRADITION FROM OUR TEACHERS THAT EVEN IF HE SAID TO THE GREAT <i>BETH DIN</i> IN JERUSALEM, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD LEARN AND WRITE AND GIVE TO HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 71b. ');">¹⁵</span> Now if you say that the writing of the Get is meant, this creates no difficulty, but if you say it is the writing of the signatures, surely there is no <i>Beth din</i>, the members of which do not know how to sign their names? — Yes; this might happen in a new <i>Beth din</i>. Now if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means 'write your signatures,' but as to the actual Get, it is in order even if written by others [how can this be seeing that] Samuel said in the name of Rabbi that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent? — We might reply that if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means the signatures, then as far as the writing of the Get is concerned it is as though the husband had given instructions that they should tell [the scribe], and R. Jose admits that [the Get written by the scribe is valid] where he said, Tell [the scribe to write it]. But does R. Jose admit that it is valid where he says to them, Tell [the scribe]? Have we not learnt: 'If the scribe wrote and there was one witness [besides], the Get is valid,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Our Mishnah text actually reads: WRITE AND GIVE, but this Gemarah reading is supported by the J. Mishnah.] ');">¹⁶</span> and R. Jeremiah said in regard to this, Our Version is, If the scribe signs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He signs the Get as witness, in conjunction with another witness. ');">¹⁷</span> and R. Hisda said, Whom does the Mishnah follow? R. Jose, who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently we may safely assume that the scribe was commissioned to sign by the husband himself, and there is no fear that the agent told him to do so on his own authority, so as not to offend the scribe. ');">¹⁸</span> Now if you assume that R. Jose admits [that the Get is valid] where he says, Tell [the scribe], then a calamity may result, since sometimes he will say to two persons,

Explore commentary for Gittin 132:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.