Gittin - Daf 3
- Why two עדים are not required to confirm signatures: כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב''ד
The Gemara asks, according to Rava that בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is to confirm the signatures, why is one witness sufficient? It answers that fundamentally, documents do not need any confirmation, because Reish Lakish said: עדים החתומים על השטר נעשו כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב"ד – Witnesses signed onto a document are treated as if their testimony was already examined in court, because people do not dare forge documents. The Rabbinical requirement to confirm the get’s signatures can be satisfied with one witness, so she should not remain an agunah if two witnesses cannot be found. The Gemara objects, as it did in the previous Gemara, that this can be counterproductive, since if the husband later denies the get’s authenticity, there will be only a single witness to challenge him. It answers that since the agent must deliver the get in front of others, מעיקרא מידק דייק ולא אתי לאורועי נפשיה – he is careful from the beginning and will not come to compromise himself by the husband challenging the get he delivered publicly. He ensures that the get is authentic and the husband wants to divorce her. It is thus unlikely the husband will challenge and will not even be believed if he does.
- Why Rava and Rabbah do not accept the each other’s explanation
The Gemara explains why Rava was not willing to explain our Mishnah’s reason to be verification of לשמה: מי קתני בפני נכתב לשמה בפני נחתם לשמה – Does [the Mishnah] teach that he says, “It was written לשמה before me and it was signed לשמה before me”? Since it does not say so, the purpose of בפני נכתב is apparently not for לשמה verification. Rabbah answers that they did not require such a long formula (i.e., including the word "לשמה"), lest he inadvertently leave out part which invalidates the get, not having followed the exact required procedure. After he makes the declaration, Beis Din then asks him if the get was written לשמה. Rabbah did not explain the Mishnah’s reason to be confirmation of the signatures, because that would only require testifying about the signing of the get, and not its writing also. Rava responds that there was a concern that people may conclude that a single witness is sufficient to confirm signatures on all documents, so they enacted this additional requirement to indicate that the procedure is an exception. Rabbah counters since there are already several halachic differences between the confirmations, no one would confuse them.
- Rebbe Meir does not require writing לשמה and Rebbe Eliezer does not require signingלשמה
Our Mishnah, by requiring testimony about the writing and the signing, apparently holds that לשמה is required by both (according to Rabbah). The Gemara wonders which Tanna holds this way. Rebbe Meir does not require the writing to be לשמה, because a Mishnah teaches that although a get cannot be signed while attached to the ground, but כתבו על המחובר לקרקע – if he wrote it on something attached to the ground, תלשו חתמו ונתנו לה כשר – detached it, then signed it and gave it to her, it is valid, despite its being written while attached. We see Rebbe Meir does not require the writing to be לשמה since the requirements to be לשמה and detached are taught in the same phrase. Rebbe Eliezer, although he required writing to be לשמה, does not require signing to be לשמה. He does not even require it Rabbinically, as seen from the Mishnah of the three Rabbinically invalid gittin where Rebbe Eliezer says that even without signatures, so long as the get was given in front of witnesses, it is valid, שאין העדים חותמים על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם – because witnesses only sign on a get for the benefit of society. The Gemara answers its question on the next Daf.
