Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OTHER THINGS THAT DO OR DO NOT JOIN (cont.)

(a) Question: Even if the first half is still wet, this does not help

1. (Mishnah): Water being poured, or flowing down an incline, or wetness - these are not connections, neither to make something Tamei nor Tahor.

(b) Answer: Ilfa speaks when the first half of the hand washed is still wet enough to wet something else.
(c) Question: This also is explicit in a Beraisa!

1. (Beraisa): Something wet enough to wet something else, all the water on it is considered to be connected.

(d) Answer: That Beraisa could be as R. Yehudah, regarding Mikva'os.

1. (Mishnah): A Mikvah that contains exactly 40 Se'ah, and 2 people immersed in it, one after the other - the first is Tahor, the second is Tamei (since some of the water remains on the first person, less than 40 Se'ah remains in the Mikvah);
2. R. Yehudah says, if the second immerses before the first totally leaves the water, he is also Tahor (the water on the first person is considered to be connected to the Mikvah).

(e) (R. Yirmeyah): We know, one who enters (bathes in, or has poured upon him) 3 Log of drawn water (i.e. that was in a vessel), he is Tamei;

1. Question (R. Yirmeyah): What if half he enters half this amount, and the other half falls on him?

i. This question is unresolved.

(f) (Rav Papa): We know, a man that had a seminal emission and is sick, if 9 Kabin of water are poured on him, he is Tahor (i.e. allowed to learn Torah);

1. Question (Rav Papa): What if he immerses in half this amount, and the rest falls on him?

i. This question is unresolved.

(a) (Mishnah): 1 messenger says 'it was written in front of me', the other says 'it was signed in front of me' (it is invalid).
(b) Version #1 (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): This only applies when only 1 is an agent to give the Get; but if both are agents, it is Kosher.

1. He holds, 2 agents that bring a Get from abroad need not make a declaration.

(c) Question (Abaye): But the end of the Mishnah says, 2 messengers say 'it was written in front of us', 1 says 'it was signed in front of me', it is invalid; R. Yehudah says, it is valid!

1. You should also say that this only applies when only 1 (of those that saw it written) is an agent to give the Get; but if both are agents, Chachamim agree that it is Kosher!

(d) Answer (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): Yes!
(e) Question: When only 1 (of those that saw it written) is an agent to give the Get, why do Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue?
(f) Answer: Chachamim decree, lest people will come to validate other documents when only 1 witness recognizes the signatures; R. Yehudah does not decree.
(g) Version #2 (Mishnah): 1 messenger says 'it was written in front of me', the other says 'it was signed in front of me' (it is invalid).
(h) (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): This applies even when both are agents to give the Get.

1. He holds, 2 agents that bring a Get from abroad must say 'it was written and signed in front of us'.

(i) Question (Abaye): But the end of the Mishnah says, 2 messengers say 'it was written in front of us', 1 says 'it was signed in front of me', it is invalid; R. Yehudah says, it is valid!

1. You should also say that this applies even when both (of those that saw it written) are agents to give the Get!

(j) Answer (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): Yes!
(k) Question: Why do Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue?
(l) Answer: Chachamim say that (in general) the declaration is needed because we are concerned that it was not written Lishmah;

1. (Therefore, even 2 agents must testify that they saw it written and signed; since only 1 of them saw it signed, we decree that it is invalid, lest people come to validate other documents based on 1 witness.)

(m) R. Yehudah says that (in general) the declaration is needed because witnesses are not available to validate the signatures - when there are 2 agents, there is no concern for validation.
(n) Suggestion: Rabah and Rava argue as Chachamim and R. Yehudah!
(o) Rejection: No - each Amora can say that both Chachamim and R. Yehudah hold as he does.

1. Rava learns as Version #1.
2. Rabah says, both are concerned for Lishmah; the Beraisa speaks after the law of Lishmah became well-known;

i. Chachamim decree that the declaration must still be made, lest the law will be forgotten again; R. Yehudah does not make this decree.

3. Question: If so, R. Yehudah should also argue in the previous case, 1 messenger says 'it was written in front of me', the other says 'it was signed in front of me' (it is invalid)!
4. Answer: Indeed, Ula taught that R. Yehudah also argues in the previous case!
5. Question (R. Oshiya, against Ula - Beraisa): R. Yehudah says that this case works, not another case.

i. Suggestion: The other case which does not work is when 1 messenger says 'it was written in front of me', the other says 'it was signed in front of me'.

6. Answer: No - the case is when he says 'it was signed in front of me but not written in front of me'.

i. One might have thought, since R. Yehudah did not decree lest the law of Lishmah will be forgotten again, he also does not decree that the messenger must testify about the writing of the Get (which itself is a decree so people will not come to think that 1 witness is normally acceptable for validation of documents).
ii. We hear, this is not so.

(p) (Rav Yehudah): 2 agents that bring a Get from abroad - R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue whether they must say 'it was written and signed in front of us'.
(q) Question (Rav Yehudah and Rabah): 2 agents that bring a Get from abroad - must they say 'it was written and signed in front of us'?
(r) Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah): They need not say it - they themselves would be believed to say that they witnessed the divorce (so there is no concern that the husband will contest the Get)!