Commentary for Gittin 29:14

מתקיף לה רבא מי איכא מידי דאילו אמר חד כשר השתא דאיכא תרי פסול אלא אמר רבא אפי'

is written with special reference to the woman for whom it is intended, the rest requires no such ['special intention']? — R. Ashi therefore said that the second half is meant. THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. R. Hisda said: Even if two other persons attest the signature of the second witness, the Get is still invalid. What is the reason for this? — In regard to both signatures alike<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the whole of it'. ');">⁹</span> we must either insist on confirmation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the attestation of two witnesses. V. supra 2b. ');">¹⁰</span> or follow the regulation of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which requires a declaration from the bearer. ');">¹¹</span> Raba demurred strongly to this [reasoning]. Is there anything, he said, which is declared valid on the word of one witness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz, the bearer, whose word is taken if he says that he recognises the signature of the witness; supra 3a. ');">¹²</span> and invalid on the word of two? No, said Raba; what we must say is that even

Explore commentary for Gittin 29:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.