In this daf, we continue our deep dive into the sugya of validating a get when the shliach cannot testify on the entire document himself. The Gemara focuses on a case where the shliach testifies on his own signature and joins with another witness to validate the second signature, exploring why the Chachamim declared this invalid. We will see a beautiful discussion between Rava and Rav Ashi regarding whether this is due to a gezeirah—lest people mistakenly apply this lenient standard to ordinary financial documents—or because a get cannot be validated through a combination of two different types of halachic credibility.
To clarify these principles, the Gemara analyzes our Mishnah's ruling regarding a shliach who testifies that the get was written in his presence but only half of it was signed in his presence. We will see how this Mishnah is understood according to Rava, Rav Ashi, and Rav Chisda. Finally, the Gemara brings a fascinating parallel discussion from Hilchos Shabbos regarding whether two different types of halachic partitions can combine to form a single ten-handbreadth boundary.
הוּא וְאַחֵר מְעִידִין עַל חֲתִימַת יַד שֵׁנִי – פָּסוּל.
If he, the agent, and another person testify on the signature of the second witness, the get is invalid.
מַאי טַעְמָא?
What is the reason for this?
אָתוּ לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, וְקָא נָפֵיק נְכֵי רִיבְעָא דְמָמוֹנָא אַפּוּמָּא דְּחַד סָהֲדָא.
Because people might come to confuse this with the general ratification of documents of the world, and as a result, money minus a quarter will go out based on the mouth of one witness.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ אִיהוּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא, כָּשֵׁר; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא חַד בַּהֲדֵיהּ, פָּסוּל?!
Rav Ashi objects to this: Is there any situation where if he himself would complete his entire statement by saying 'It was written in my presence and signed in my presence' the get is valid, and now that there is another witness with him to help, it is invalid?!
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹמֵר ״אֲנִי הוּא עֵד שֵׁנִי״ – פָּסוּל.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: Even if the agent says, "I am the second witness" who signed, it is invalid.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּקִיּוּם הַגֵּט, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים.
What is the reason? A get must be validated either entirely through the ratification of the get like other documents, or entirely through the Rabbinic decree of the agent's declaration.
תְּנַן: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ, בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ״, פָּסוּל.
We learned in our Mishnah: If the agent says, "In my presence all of it was written, and in my presence half of it was signed," it is invalid.
אִידַּךְ חֶצְיוֹ הֵיכִי דָמֵי?
With regard to the other half of the signatures, what are the circumstances?
אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל; הַשְׁתָּא אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, דְּהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ כְּתִיבָה וְהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ חֲתִימָה, פָּסוּל; חֶצְיוֹ מִיבַּעְיָא?!
If we say that there is no one who testifies about it at all, now if one says "In my presence it was written" and one says "In my presence it was signed," where this one testifies on all the writing and that one testifies on all the signing, it is invalid; is it necessary to state that only half of it being testified to is invalid?!
אֶלָּא אוֹ כִּדְרָבָא אוֹ כִּדְרַב אָשֵׁי, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
Rather, it must be referring to a case where there is additional testimony, either according to Rava where the agent joins another to testify on the second signature, or according to Rav Ashi where he testifies on his own signature, and this is to exclude the opinion of Rav Chisda who invalidates even with a full ratification of the second signature.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ לָמָּה לִי?
Rav Chisda could say to you: And according to your reasoning, why do I need the clause in the Mishnah of "In my presence it was written but not in my presence was it signed" to teach that it is invalid?
אֶלָּא לֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.
Rather, the Tanna teaches in the style of 'not only this, but also that', and here too, the Tanna teaches 'not only this, but also that'.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בִּמְחִיצָה אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּגִידּוּד.
Rav Chisda said: An embankment of five handbreadths and a partition of five handbreadths do not join together to form a partition of ten, unless it is either entirely a partition or entirely an embankment.
דָּרֵשׁ מָרִימָר: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה – מִצְטָרְפִין.
Mareimar expounded: An embankment of five and a partition of five do join together.
וְהִלְכְתָא: מִצְטָרְפִין.
And the halacha is: They join together.
בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יָדַיִם – טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין, אוֹ אֵין טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין?
Ilfa raised a dilemma: Can hands become pure in halves, or do they not become pure in halves?
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
What are the circumstances?
אִילֵּימָא דְּקָא מָשׁוּ בֵּי תְרֵי מֵרְבִיעִית, וְהָא תְּנַן: מֵרְבִיעִית נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם, לְאֶחָד וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם!
If we say that two people wash from a quarter-log of water, but didn't we learn in a Mishnah: From a quarter-log we wash hands, for one and even for two!
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָא מָשֵׁי חֲדָא חֲדָא יְדֵיהּ, וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵל יָדוֹ אַחַת בִּנְטִילָה, וְאַחַת בִּשְׁטִיפָה, יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת!
But rather, is it that he washes his hands one by one? But didn't we learn in a Mishnah: One who washes one hand with pouring and one with dipping, his hands are pure!
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָא מָשֵׁי פַּלְגָא פַּלְגָא דְּיָדֵיהּ, וְהָאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יָדַיִם – אֵין טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין!
But rather, is it that he washes half and half of his hand? But didn't the school of Rabbi Yannai say: Hands do not become pure in halves!
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ.
No, it is necessary for a case where there is moisture that is wet enough to wet other things.
וְכִי אִיכָּא מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן:
And when there is moisture that is wet enough to wet other things, what of it? But didn't we learn in a Mishnah:
The Gemara concludes that a get is invalid if the shliach attempts to validate it using a combination of his own shlichus testimony and standard signature ratification. Rav Ashi explains that we require a get to be validated entirely through one halachic track—either fully through the rabbinic decree of the shliach's declaration, or fully through standard court ratification. This principle is tested against the Mishnah's case of a shliach who witnesses only half the signing, which the Gemara uses to analyze the views of Rava, Rav Ashi, and Rav Chisda. Ultimately, the Gemara connects this concept of combining different halachic mechanisms to a dispute between Rav Chisda and Mareimar regarding Hilchos Shabbos, where we rule leniently that an embankment and a partition can indeed join together to form the required ten-handbreadth boundary.
In today's daf, Rav Ashi teaches us a profound principle about how we establish truth and validity. He explains that a get cannot be validated by a combination of two different types of credibility; it must be authenticated "either entirely through the ratification of the bill of divorce, or entirely via the rabbinic decree." We cannot patch together half of one system and half of another to make something kosher. It has to be complete, consistent, and whole.
How often in our own avodah do we try to live in two different worlds at the same time, patching together a spiritual life out of contradictory pieces? We might try to bring the standards of the street into our homes, while still expecting our children to have pure yiras Shamayim. Or we try to run our businesses with a bit of worldly corner-cutting, while expecting our tefillah to be perfectly pure. The Gemara is teaching us that real, lasting spiritual structures cannot be built on half-measures and mixed systems.
To build a true bayis ne'eman in Yisrael, and to truly stand before Hashem, we need consistency. Our inside must match our outside, and our standards in one area of life must align with our standards in another. When we strive for this wholeness, our avodah becomes solid, beautiful, and enduring.
Today, choose one area of your life where you have been compromising or mixing standards, and bring it into complete alignment with your true values of yiras Shamayim.