Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

3) HOW MANY WITNESSES ARE NEEDED

(a) Objection: Being lenient (to require only 1 witness) will lead to problems!

1. If 2 witnesses were required, the husband could not come later and claim that the Get is not Lishmah; since only 1 witness testifies, the husband can come and disqualify the Get!

(b) Answer: Since the Get must be given in front of others, the messenger will be disgraced if it is found to be invalid, so he will be very careful to see it written Lishmah. Therefore, the husband will not be believed to disqualify it.

1. R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued if it is given in front of 2 or 3 men.

(c) Question: Rava says that witnesses are not available to validate the signatures. Why is the messenger believed to validate the Get - 2 witnesses should be required, as in validation of any document!
(d) Answer: 1 witness is believed regarding prohibitions.
(e) Objection: We only say that in cases such as a piece of meat which may be Chelev or Shumen, since the piece was never established to be forbidden;

1. In our case, the woman who will receive the Get was known to be married (and forbidden to all other men)!
2. Also - a Get permits incestuous relations (a married woman to be with another man) - 2 witnesses are required by such things!

(f) Answer: Really, there is no need for validation at all.

1. (Reish Lakish): A signed document is viewed as if the witnesses testified, and Beis Din accepted their testimony.
2. Chachamim were stringent to require validation; they were not so strict to require 2 witnesses, for this would cause Igun (she would be unable to marry if no one else here recognized the signatures).

(g) Objection: Being lenient (to require only 1 witness) will lead to problems!

1. If 2 witnesses were required, the husband could not come later and claim that the signatures were forged; since only 1 witness testifies, the husband can come and disqualify the Get!

(h) Answer: Since the Get must be given in front of others, the messenger will be disgraced if it is found to be invalid, so he will be very careful to see that it is signed properly. Therefore, the husband will not be believed to disqualify it.

1. R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued if it is given in front of 2 or 3 men.

(a) Question: Why doesn't Rava learn as Rabah?
(b) Answer (and a question against Rabah!): If the concern was Lishmah, the messenger should be required to say 'It was written Lishmah in front of me and signed Lishmah in front of me'.
(c) Answer (for Rabah): Ideally, he should have to say this; however, Chachamim were concerned that if he must say so much, he will come to omit part of this.
(d) Objection: This concern applies even to the text he must say!
(e) Answer: There are 2 clauses; in the ideal text (in Hebrew), each has 3 words - a messenger may omit 1 of them. In the actual text, each clause has 2 words - a messenger will not omit 1 of 2 words.
(f) Question: Why doesn't Rabah learn as Rava?
(g) Answer (and a question against Rava!): If the concern was validation, the messenger should only have to say 'It was signed in front of me'; why must he also say 'It was written in front of me'?
(h) Answer (for Rava): Really, it should suffice to testify about the signatures; however, Chachamim were concerned people will come to think that in general, documents can be validated by 1 witness. Therefore, they required him to also testify about the writing, to show that this is not regular validation.
(i) Objection (Rabah): Even without testifying about the writing, it is clear that this is not regular validation!

1. In regular validation, the witnesses say 'We recognize (the signatures)'; here, he says '(It was signed) in front of me'!
2. In regular validation, a woman cannot be a witness; here, she can!
3. In regular validation, an involved party cannot be a witness; here, an involved party (the wife) can!

(j) Answer (Rava, to the first point): Also here, messengers may validate the Get by saying 'We recognize (the signatures)', so there is concern that people will think 1 witness suffices for regular validation.

(a) Question: Rabah says that the concern is that people are ignorant of the law of Lishmah. The messenger must testify about the writing and signing of the Get - which Tana requires that both of these be Lishmah?

1. It cannot be R. Meir - he only requires signing Lishmah, not writing Lishmah!

i. (Mishnah): A Get may not be written on something attached to the ground. If it was written on something attached, was detached and signed, it is valid. (We see, only the signatures must be done properly!)

2. The Mishnah cannot be as R. Elazar - he only requires writing Lishmah, not signing Lishmah!

(b) Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah is as R. Elazar; mid'Oraisa, he does not require signing Lishmah, but mid'Rabanan, he does!
(c) Rejection: A Mishnah shows that he says that an unsigned Get is valid.

1. (Mishnah): There are 3 Gitin which should not be given; if they were given (and the wife married someone else), her children are Kosher.

i. The husband wrote the Get himself, and no witnesses signed it;
ii. Witnesses signed the Get, but there is no date on it;
iii. It has a date, but only 1 witness signed it.

2. R. Elazar says, even if it no witnesses signed, but he gave it to his wife in front of witnesses, it is valid; such a document may be used to collect (her Kesuvah; others explain, a loan) from land that (the husband or borrower) sold;

i. R. Elazar holds, witnesses only sign on a document as a protective enactment, lest the witnesses that saw the giving of the document will not be around to testify.

(d) Answer #1: Really, the Mishnah is as R. Meir; he does not require the Get to be written Lishmah mid'Oraisa, but requires this mid'Rabanan.
(e) Objection: But Rav Nachman said, according to R. Meir, if a man finds a Get in the trash (and the names match the names of him and his wife), he may have witnesses sign it and give it to his wife!