הנצוק והקטפרס ומשקה טופח אינו חיבור לא לטומאה ולא לטהרה
A stream of water, and water descending an incline [katafres], and liquid that rendered an item moist do not connect, neither for ritual impurity nor for purity. These liquids do not connect for impurity, e.g., if impure water is in one place and becomes attached to another source of water pouring from above it, the water above is not considered attached to the impure water and is not rendered impure. They also do not connect for purity, e.g., if two collections of water are attached via the pouring of a stream, they do not join together to form the amount of water necessary to form a valid ritual bath, through which people and items can become ritually pure. If so, liquid that rendered a hand moist should not serve to attach the two halves of one’s hand when they are washed.
לא צריכא דאיכא טופח להטפיח הא נמי תנינא טופח להטפיח חיבור
The Gemara answers: No, this dilemma is necessary in a case where there is liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist. In other words, the half of the hand that was washed is not merely slightly moist, it is moist enough to render something else moist. The Gemara asks: We already learned this as well: With regard to liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist, it connects with other liquid. What, then, is Ilfa’s dilemma?
דלמא לענין מקואות ורבי יהודה היא דתנן מקוה שיש בו ארבעים סאה מכוונות וירדו שנים וטבלו (שניהם בבת אחת טהורים)
The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the halakha that liquid rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with other liquid is stated only with regard to the issue of ritual baths, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:6): In the case of a ritual bath that contains precisely forty se’a of water, and two people descended and immersed in it, if both of them immersed at the same time they are ritually pure.
בזה אחר זה ראשון טהור והשני טמא
If they immersed sequentially, then the first person is ritually pure, as he immersed in a ritual bath that contains the requisite amount of water, but the second person is impure, because some of the water must certainly have clung to the first individual as he left the ritual bath. Consequently, after the first person’s immersion the ritual bath contained slightly less than the requisite forty se’a of water.
רבי יהודה אומר אם היו רגליו של ראשון נוגעות במים אף השני טהור
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the first person’s feet were still touching the water in the ritual bath when the second person immersed, then the second person is also ritually pure. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the water left on the body of the person who has immersed connects with the water in the ritual bath to constitute the requisite amount of water. Clearly, in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins together with other liquid. However, this halakha was stated only with regard to a ritual bath. It remains unclear whether liquid that rendered an item moist enough to render another item moist joins with the water used to wash the second half of one’s hand. Perhaps this is the dilemma raised by Ilfa.
אמר רבי ירמיה הרי אמרו הבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ועל רובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין טמא בעי ר' ירמיה חציו בביאה וחציו בנפילה מאי תיקו
The Gemara cites another question with regard to this issue. Rabbi Yirmeya says: They said in a mishna (Zavim 5:12): In the case of one whose head and most of his body enter into drawn water after he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself, and a ritually pure person concerning whom three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body, both of these people are ritually impure. With regard to this mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If half of a person became purified by entering into drawn water and half of him became purified by having water fall on him, what is the halakha? Do these acts join together to render him ritually impure or not? No answer is found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אמר רב פפא הרי אמרו בעל קרי חולה שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור בעי רב פפא חציו בטבילה וחציו בנתינה מאי תיקו:
Similarly, Rav Pappa says: They said in a mishna (Mikvaot 3:4): In the case of a sick person who experienced a seminal emission, who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, this is sufficient to render him ritually pure. He need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If half of him is purified by immersion and half of him through this act of pouring, what is the halakha? No answer is found for this dilemma either, and the Gemara says that it shall stand unresolved.
אחד אומר בפני נכתב ואחד אומר כו': אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שאין הגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם אבל גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם
§ The mishna taught that if one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, the bill of divorce is invalid. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught that the document is invalid only if the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them in court. In other words, this halakha applies only if they were not both agents for bringing this bill of divorce. Rather, one of them alone fulfilled this role and he did not say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, in accordance with the rabbinic decree. However, if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them,