Gittin 66

לא בטלה כולה ואי אזלי הנך כתבי ויהבי ליכתבו וליתבו

the whole of it is not nullified. If therefore those [who have not heard the order countermanded] go and write [the Get] and give it to her, their action is quite proper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because as the Get has not been annulled the regulation is not disregarded. ');">¹</span>

רשב"ג סבר עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה והנך לא ידעי ואזלי וכתבי ויהבי ושרו אשת איש לעלמא

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel was of opinion that if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is nullified. [If therefore] those [who] do not know [that the order is countermanded] go and write [the Get] and give it to her, then they are enabling a married woman to marry again. Or if you like I can say that both Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel are agreed that if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is not nullified, and the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel here is that in his opinion a thing which is done in the presence of ten can only by undone in the presence of ten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the practical difference between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is that according to the former he can at least prevent any two from signing, whereas according to the latter he cannot even do this, unless he forbids them all together. ');">²</span>

ואב"א דכולי עלמא עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה והכא היינו טעמא דרשב"ג קסבר מלתא דמתעבדא באפי עשרה צריכא בי עשרה למישלפה

The question was raised: Suppose he said 'All of you write,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case one must write and all sign. Infra, 66b. ');">³</span>

איבעיא להו כולכם מהו טעמא דרשב"ג משום דקסבר עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה והני כיון דאמר להו כולכם לא מצו כתבי ויהבי

what are we to say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does Rabban Simeon still forbid him from preventing one or two separately? ');">⁴</span>

או דלמא טעמא דרשב"ג משום דקסבר כל מלתא דמתעבדא באפי בי עשרה צריכא בי עשרה למישלפה והילכך אפילו כולכם נמי

Do we say that the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [for forbidding in the case where he did not say 'all of you'] is that in his opinion if part of an evidence is nullified the whole is nullilied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if we allowed this harm would ensue, as the rest might sign when they had no right to do so. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ש אמר לשנים תנו גט לאשתי יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר אינו יכול לבטל אלא זה בפני זה והא שנים דכי כולכם דמו ופליגי

and since he said to these 'all of you,' they cannot write the Get and give it [without these two],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore no harm can ensue and he may do this. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב אשי אי בעדי כתיבה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן בעדי הולכה

or is his reason that in his opinion a thing which has been done in the presence of ten can only be undone in the presence of ten, and therefore even if he said 'all of you' [he can only countermand the order when they are all together]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the two whom he forbids can disregard his instruction. ');">⁷</span>

הכי נמי מיסתברא דקתני סיפא אמר לזה בפני עצמו ולזה בפני עצמו יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה אי אמרת בשלמא בעדי הולכה שפיר אלא אי אמרת בעדי כתיבה מי מצטרפי הא אמר מר אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד דלמא כר' יהושע בן קרחה סבירא ליה

— Come and hear: If a man said to two persons, Give a Get to my wife, he can countermand the order to one without the other. This is the ruling of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that he can only countermand it to both of them together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Git. III. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה שמעית מיניה דר' אבא תרתי חדא כרבי וחדא כרשב"ג ולא ידענא הי כרבי והי כרשב"ג

Now two here are equivalent to 'all of you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one cannot sign the Get without the other. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב יוסף ניחזי אנן דכי אתא רב דימי אמר מעשה ועשה רבי כדברי חכמים אמר לפניו רבי פרטא בנו של רבי אלעזר בן פרטא בן בנו של ר' פרטא הגדול אם כן מה כח בית דין יפה וחזר רבי ועשה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

and yet we see that Rabbi and Rabban Simeon differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Rabban Simeon requires that they must all be together. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומדהא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל הך כרבי

— Said R. Ashi: If the two are witnesses to the Get, then Rabban Simeon would also admit [that he can countermand separately].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because no harm can possibly ensue, as one signature by itself is worthless. ');">¹¹</span>

ואף ר' יאשיה דמן אושא סבר חדא כרבי וחדא כרשב"ג דאמר רבה בר בר חנה חמשה סבי הוינן קמיה דר' יאשיה דמן אושא אתא ההוא גברא קמיה ואשקליה גיטא על כורחיה אמר לן זילו אטמורו וכתבו לה

Here, however, we are dealing with witnesses to the taking of the Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he appointed the two as bearers to take the Get to the wife, in which case one might take it to her without the other, being unaware that the husband had countermanded the commission. ');">¹²</span>

ואי ס"ד כרבי כי מיטמרי מאי הוי אלא שמע מינה כרשב"ג סבירא ליה

This opinion is borne out by the conclusion of the passage quoted: 'If he told each of them separately [in the first instance], he can countermand to them separately.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As countermanding the order to one does not affect the order to the other. ');">¹³</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך אידך נמי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל למה להו אטמורי ליבדרו איבדורי אלא שמע מינה חדא כרבי וחדא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

For if you say that it speaks of witnesses to the taking of the Get, this is intelligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no question of evidence arises in connection with the act of taking the Get. ');">¹⁴</span>

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,