Commentary for Gittin 32:7

במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו

also? — This is in fact the case, as has been stated: 'Ulla said that R. Judah differed from the Rabbis in the first case also. R. Oshiah raised an objection to 'Ulla. [It has been taught:] R. Judah declares [the Get] valid in this case, and not in the other. Does he not mean by this, [he said,] to except the case where one says 'It was written in my presence' and one says 'it was signed in my presence'? — No. He means to except the case where one says, 'It was signed in my presence but not written in my presence'. I might think that since R. Judah does not think it necessary to guard against the danger of a recurrence of the ignorance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By declaring the Get invalid if one declares that he has seen it written and one that he has seen it signed. ');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Gittin 32:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.