Reference for Gittin 66:15

ורבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כרבי בשתיהן ולית ליה לרב נחמן מה כח בית דין יפה והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל

But if you say that it speaks of the witnesses to the writing of the Get, how can these be joined together [if they were at first separate]? Has not the Master said: 'Their [separate] evidences are not combined [to form a whole]; they must both see [the event] together'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 26b; B.B. 32a. Similarly here both witnesses must receive in each other's presence the mandate to write the Get. ');">¹⁵</span> — [This, however, is not conclusive], since perhaps [the teaching quoted] follows the view of R. Joshuah b. Korhah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that they need not be together. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Samuel b. Judah said: I have heard R. Abba give rulings on both [these points],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the annulling of the Get in another place and the countermanding of one witness not in the presence of the other. ');">¹⁷</span> one following Rabbi and the other following Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, but I do not know which one follows Rabbi and which Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Said R. Joseph: We are able to throw light on this. For when R. Dimi came [from Palestine], he reported to us that Rabbi once in an actual case decided according to the ruling of the Sages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the judges estimated an article at a sixth more or less than its real value, the sale is invalid. Keth. 99b. ');">¹⁸</span> and R. Parta the son of R. Eleazar b. Parta and the grandson of the great R. Parta said to him: If that is so, what authority do you leave to the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 135. n. 1. ');">¹⁹</span> and Rabbi thereupon reversed his decision and followed the ruling of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the authority of the Beth din is in all cases to be upheld. ');">²⁰</span> And since the ruling in this case follows Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the annulment in another place is ineffective, since, if not, the authority of the Beth din is not upheld. (V. Tosaf. s.v. [G]). ');">²¹</span> in the other it follows Rabbi. R. Josiah from Usha was also of opinion that the ruling in one case followed the opinion of Rabbi and in the other of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: We were sitting five elders before R. Josiah from Usha and a certain man came before him whom he compelled to give a Get against his will, and he said to them [the witnesses, after compelling him], Go and conceal yourselves [from him] and write her [the Get]. Now if you assume that he ruled according to the opinion of Rabbi, if they did conceal themselves what difference did it make?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can find two other persons and annul it in their presence. ');">²²</span> This shows that [in this point] he followed Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. But should you assume further that in the other point also he held with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, [we can ask,] why should they have hidden themselves? It would have been sufficient if they had separated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he cannot countermand it to each witness separately. ');">²³</span> This shows that he held with Rabbi in regard to one point and with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in regard to the other. Raba, however, said in the name of R. Nahman that the <i>halachah</i> follows Rabbi in both points. But does not R. Nahman hold that the authority of the <i>Beth din</i> must be upheld? Did not R. Nahman say in the name of Samuel,

Explore reference for Gittin 66:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.