Gittin 29

כבינתי לבתי והיא בשנים עשר מנה ומתה וקיימו חכמים את דבריה אמר להם בני רוכל תקברם אמם

to my daughter, it is worth twelve <i>maneh</i>; and then she died and the Sages carried out her instruction? He replied: The sons of Rokel — may their mother bury them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As much as to say, they are men of such bad character that their name is not fit to be mentioned in the Beth Hamidrash, and they do not form a precedent. For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 679. ');">¹</span>

ת"ק כר"א ור' נתן ור' יעקב נמי כר"א אע"ג דמית לא אמרינן מצוה לקיים דברי המת ויש אומרים כרבנן

The first Tanna [in our passage] holds with R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who makes no distinction between a man in health or dying, while 'take' is not treated as 'accept on behalf'. ');">²</span>

ור' יהודה הנשיא שאמר משום ר"מ כר"א מיהו היכא דמית אמרינן מצוה לקיים דברי המת וחכמים אומרי' יחלוקו מספקא להו וכאן אמרו שודא עדיף ור"ש הנשיא מעשה אתא לאשמועינן

and R. Nathan and R. Jacob also hold with R. Eleazar, [so much so] that although the owner dies, we do not say that it is a religious duty to carry out his wishes. 'Some' [authorities] hold with the Rabbis. R. Judah speaking in the name of R. Jacob who himself spoke in the name of R. Meir held with R. Eleazar, only where the sender had died in the meanwhile he applied the principle of carrying out the wishes of the deceased. The Sages said the money should be divided, because they were in doubt. 'Here' [in Babylon] they said that the bearer could best estimate for himself, while R. Simeon the Prince merely desired to give an illustration.

אבעיא להו ר"ש הנשיא נשיא הוא או משמיה דנשיא קאמר ת"ש דאמר רב יוסף הלכה כר"ש הנשיא ועדיין תיבעי לך נשיא הוא או דקאמר משמיה דנשיא תיקו

A question was asked in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>: Was R. Simeon the Prince really a prince,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nasi, the title of the officially recognised head of the Jewish community in Palestine under the Roman Empire, corresponding to the Resh Galutha in Babylonia. [The name of Simeon the 'Prince' does not occur elsewhere, hence the question whether his designation was 'the Prince' or whether the words 'in the name of the Prince' are omitted from the text. For a similar omission cf. B.K. 39b, 1, v. Tosaf.] ');">³</span>

גופא אמר רב יוסף הלכה כר"ש הנשיא והא קיי"ל דברי שכיב מרע ככתובין וכמסורין דמו

or did he speak in the name of the Prince? — Come and hear: R. Joseph said that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But the question still remains whether he was a Prince or only spoke in the name of a Prince? — Let it stand over.

רב יוסף מוקי לה בבריא והא ליורשי משלח קאמר וקיי"ל מצוה לקיים דברי המת תני יחזרו למשלח:

The text above says: R. Jose said that the <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But is it not an established rule that the words of a man on his death bed have the same force as if they were written and delivered? [R. Joseph] understands [the Baraitha] to be speaking of the case [where the sender was] in good health. But R. Simeon said it should be returned 'to the heirs of the sender'. though all are agreed it is a fixed rule that it is a religious duty to carry out the instructions of the deceased? — Read: 'returned to the sender'.

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המביא גט:</strong></big><br><br>

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET FROM 'FOREIGN PARTS' DECLARES: 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', [OR]. 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE', [OR] 'THE WHOLE OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE OF THE WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'half of it was signed in my presence'. ');">⁴</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>המביא</strong></big> גט ממדינת הים ואמר בפני נכתב אבל לא בפני נחתם בפני נחתם אבל לא בפני נכתב בפני נכתב כולו ובפני נחתם חציו בפני נכתב חציו ובפני נחתם כולו פסול

[OR] 'ONLY HALF WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the whole of it was signed'. ');">⁵</span>

אחד אומר בפני נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ור' יהודה מכשיר אחד אומר בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר:

SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE' — IN ALL THESE CASES THE GET IS INVALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule being that it must all be written and signed by two witnesses in his presence. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא תו ל"ל הא תנא ליה חדא זימנא המביא גט ממדינת הים צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אי מההיא הוה אמינא צריך ואי לא אמר כשר קמ"ל:

IF ONE [PERSON] DECLARES 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. THE GET IS INVALID. IF TWO [PERSONS] DECLARE, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. IF ONE DECLARES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND TWO SAY, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN OUR PRESENCE', IT IS VALID.

בפני נכתב חציו ובפני נחתם כולו פסול: הי חציו אלימא חציו ראשון והאמר ר"א אפילו לא כתב בו אלא שיטה אחת לשמה שוב אינו צריך אלא אמר רב אשי חציו אחרון:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why this repetition? Is it not all included in what we have already learnt: The bearer of a Get from 'foreign parts' is required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that it was completely written and completely signed in his presence. (Rashi). ');">⁷</span>

בפני נכתב כולו ובפני נחתם חציו פסול: אמר רב חסדא ואפילו שנים מעידים על חתימת יד שני פסול מאי טעמא

— If I had only that to go by, I might think that [though] he is required [to make this declaration], yet if he omitted [to do so the Get is still] valid. Now I know that [this is not the case].

או כולו בקיום הגט או כולו בתקנת חכמים

ONLY HALF OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. Which half is referred to? If you say the first half, what of the dictum of R. Eleazar, that if only one line<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the line containing the name of the man and of his wife and the date. ');">⁸</span>

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