משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב כּוּלֹּו וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלֹּו פָּסוּל. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם פָּסוּל. וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם כָּשֵׁר. MISHNAH: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, “it was written before me,” but not “it was signed before me,” or “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”, “it was written before me but signed only partially before me”, “it was partially written before me but signed completely before me”, it is invalid1The rule of Mishnah 1:1 is not followed.. If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid; if two people say, “it was written before us” but only one2A third person. says, “it was signed before me,” it is invalid; but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid3R. Jehudah declares a bill of divorce valid if one witness testifies to the writing and one to the signing; he does not require that both be the same person.. If one says, “it was written before me” but two say, “it was signed before us,” it is valid4Any document is valid which is witnessed by two persons whose signatures are validated by two witnesses..
הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. נִיחָא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. כְּלוּם קִיּוּמוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט אֶלָּא בְחוֹתְמָיו. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִי יוֹדָה פוֹסֵל בַּטּוֹפְסִין. וּדְרִבִּי יוּדָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְיֵשׁ טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כִּמְגָרֵשׁ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁהוּא גֵּט אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁהוּא נַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא גֵּט אִשָּׁה. עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב כּוּלֹּו בְּפָנָיו עַד שֶׁיִּתְחַתֵּם כּוּלּוֹ בְּפָנָיו. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין. אִם הָיָה נִכְנַס וְיוֹצֵא מוּתָּר. HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me”, but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates forms5In Mishnah 3:2, the anonymous majority permit the routine production of forms of bills of divorce where everything is written in advance and only the names of husband and wife, the date, and the statement of divorce are then inserted for the particular couple involved in the divorce; but R. Jehudah holds that the requirement that “he write for her” (Deut. 24:1) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last.. Following Rebbi Jehudah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel6In Halakhah 3:2, practice is declared as following R. Jehudah.. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce7Since the agent is to be interviewed about the writing of the bill, it is obvious that he could not answer if the bill was a form in which only the names of husband and wife and the time were inserted. Even the anonymous majority of Mishnah 3:2 must agree that forms are possible only in the Land. and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: It is permitted that he enter and leave8In all matters of supervision, it is possible for the supervisor to leave the place occasionally as long as he can return at any moment and the person to be supervised, in this case the scribe, does not know in advance when the supervisor will return. The same baraita is accepted in the Babli, 6a..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא נִתְייַחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בֵּין כְּתִיבָה לַחֲתִימָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. מִפְּנִי שֶֶׁאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְייַחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בֵּין כְּתִיבָה לַחֲתִימָה. כָּשֵׁר. רַב חִסְדָּא בָּעֵי. חֶצְייוֹ מִתַּקָּנָה וְחֶצְיוֹ מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְייַחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. מִפְּנִי שֶׁאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְייַחֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים שָׁעָה אַחַת. כָּשֵׁר. Rebbi Yose asked: If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”9In the meantime, the husband could have substituted an invalid document for the valid one which was written in the presence of the agent.? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said, “it was written before me” and another, “it was signed before me”; this implies10The fact that the case is not mentioned in the Mishnah; neither here nor in Mishnah 1:1 is there any mention that the document has to be seen by the agent between writing and signing. that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”, it is valid. Rav Ḥisda asked: half of an institution and half as biblical decree11The requirement that the bill be written specifically for that wife is biblical, the requirement that the agent be present at writing and signing is purely rabbinical. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 (Note 14) that the husband is not suspected of doing anything which would make the divorce recognized by the court when it is invalid in the eyes of Heaven (since then he would commit a sin without hurting his ex-wife). Therefore, the answer given to R. Yose’s question is reasonable.? If he said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband between writing and signing”? Let us hear from the following: “If one said ‘it was written before me’ and another ‘it was signed before me’, it is invalid.” That is, because one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”; this implies that if one said, “it was written and signed before me, but it was in the sole possession of the husband for an hour,” it is valid.
רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. רִּבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד. וּשְׁנַיִם מֵעִידִין עַל חֲתִימַת הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בַּבְלָייָא. אֵין כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא זֶה. רִבִּי אַבָּא לֹא אָמַר כָּךְ אֶלָּא. אָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם בְּעֵד אֶחָד וַאֲנִי הוּא הָעֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. נַעֲשֶׂה כְנוֹגֵעַ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ. Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abun asked: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me,” and two12Two other witnesses. testify about the signature of the second witness. Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, nothing can be more valid than this. Rebbi Abba did not say13R. Abin’s question was trivial. so but: If he said “it was written and one witness signed before me, and I am the second witness.” He is like a party interested in his testimony14He becomes party and can no longer be a witness. In the Babli, 15b, the reason is given that a bill of divorce can be validated either as a document, by the independent testimony about the signature of the witnesses, or by the special rule of divorces which allows an agent to declare that it was written and signed before him, but not by a combination of both because then the witness would validate himself..
הָיָה מְתוּתָּם בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְאָמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נִתְחַתֵּם בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. אִילֵּין תְּרֵין חוֹרָנָא לִינָא יְדַע מָה עִיסְקֵיהוֹן. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. אָמַר לָעֲשָׂרָה. חִתְמוּ בַגֵּט. וְהוּחְתְּמוּ מִקְצָתָן הַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָן לְמָחָר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. וְהַשְּׁאָר עַל תְּנַאי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּחְתְּמוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם. If there were four signatures and he said, “it was written and signed by two witnesses before me; I do not know anything about the other two.” That is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who disagreed: If he said to ten people, sign the bill of divorce, and some signed on that day and some the next day. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid, for the remainder are only because of the condition15The first two witnesses validate the document as a bill of divorce The others only sign because he made a condition that the bill be valid only with ten signatures, to make a public statement that he would no longer be responsible for his wife’s debts.. Rebbi Joḥanan said it is invalid unless all sign on the same day16One cannot split the conditions; all ten signatures are needed to validate and, therefore, must be affixed on the date specified in the document. Otherwise the document would be invalid as predated.
In the Babli, 18b, the attributions are switched. This means that the Babli, which always prefers R. Joḥanan to R. Simeon ben Laqish, follows what is declared here to be R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. The Yerushalmi does not decide between the opinions..
אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. אֲבָל בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר אַף רַבָּנִן מוֹדוֹי שֶׁהוּא כָשֵׁר. רִבִּי חְנַנְיָה דְּרִבִּי אִמִּי אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר. אֲבָל בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אַף רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹדֶה שֶׁהוּא פָסוּל. מָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אִם בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר רִבִּי יוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר אֲפִילוּ בְּקַמַּייתָא. אַייְתֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי לְרִבִּי יוֹנָה חֲמוֹי וְתַנָּה לֵיהּ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יוּדָן מַכְשִׁיר. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. לִישָׁן מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּזֶה רִבִּי יוּדָן מַכְשִׁיר. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. אִם בְּיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר כְּהָדָא לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כִשְׁנַיִם. אֵימָתַי עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כִשְׁנַיִם. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵעִיד עַל הַכְּתִיבָה וְעַל הַחֲתִימָה. Rebbi Immi said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by him personally. But if it is presented by another person, even the rabbis will agree that it is valid17This refers to the clause in the Mishnah where two people say that the bill was written in their presence and a third person testifies that it was signed in his presence. R. Immi holds that the rabbis declare the bill invalid if it is presented by the single person who saw the signing, whose testimony is incomplete, whereas R. Jehudah accepts the bill as valid if two people testify to any state of the writing of the bill. But if the bill was delivered by one of the witnesses to the writing, then he and the witness to the signing are two and the rabbis will agree that two messengers who bring a bill of divorce do not have to declare that it was written and signed before them.. Rebbi Ḥananiah agrees with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, where do they disagree? If the document is presented by another person. But if it is presented by him personally, even Rebbi Jehudah will agree that it is invalid18According to R. Ze‘ira, R. Jehudah agrees that the bill is invalid if writing and signing are attested to by different persons. In the Babli, 17a, both opinions are recorded in the name of R. Immi, held at different times.. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected to Rebbi Immi: If the document is presented by him personally, does Rebbi Jehudah declare it valid even in the first case19In the Mishnah, the bill is unanimously declared invalid if writing and signing are attested to by different persons. One has to assume that R. Jehudah agrees.? Rebbi Immi brought his father-in-law Rebbi Jonah who stated for him: If one said “it was written before me” and another “it was signed before me”, it is invalid, but Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid20A baraita shows that R. Jehudah accepts the bill if different people testify to writing and signing, showing that R. Ze‘ira’s objection is unjustified.. Rebbi Abin said, the formulation of a baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: In that case, Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid21Tosephta 2:2; only in one case does R. Jehudah accept the bill as genuine.. But it is difficult following Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the document is presented by another person, that is when they do not treat the messenger as two. When do they treat him as two? When he testifies to both writing and signing22Since in that case, any later protest by the husband is disregarded (Chapter 1, Note 9), it must be that the messenger who testifies to both writing and signing of the bill has the status of two witnesses whose testimony cannot be attacked..
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִסְתַּכֵּל בֵּיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָמָּה אַתְּ מִסְתַּכֵּל בִּי. וַאֲפִילוּ יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי אִימִּי עַד לֹא יַחְזוֹר בֵּיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אֲפִילוּ מִן דְּחָזַר בֵּיהּ אַתְייָא הִיא. שַׁנְייָה הִיא כְּתִיבָה בִשְׁנַיִם וַחֲתִימָה בִשְׁנַיִם. חֲתִימָה בִשְׁנַיִם כּוֹחָהּ מְיוּפָּה וּכְתִיבָה בִשְׁנַיִם אֵין כּוֹחָהּ מְיוּפָּה. Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is presented by him personally23This refers to the last clause of the Mishnah, where one witness has seen the writing and two the signing. The singular implies that the person presenting the bill of divorce is alone; he is the person attesting to the writing.. Rebbi Ze‘ira was looking at him24Disapprovingly.. He asked, why are you looking at me? Even if it is presented by another person25He changed his mind and accepts that two witnesses to the signature make any other witnesses superfluous.. It meansthat Rebbi Yasa before he changed his mind followed Rebbi Immi26In the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Mana said, even after he changed his mind it can be explained following him. There is a difference between two witnesses to the writing and two witnesses to the signing. Signing before two [witnesses] is empowered27Any document is confirmed by two signatures if the latter can be notarized in court., writing before two is not empowered28Except for bills of divorce, the circumstances of writing a document are irrelevant..