Gittin 16
הַנִּצּוֹק, וְהַקָּטַפְרֵס, וּמַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ – אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְטׇהֳרָה!
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.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא טוֹפֵחַ לְהַטְפִּיחַ. הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: טוֹפֵחַ לְהַטְפִּיחַ – חִיבּוּר!
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?
דִּלְמָא לְעִנְיַן מִקְוָאוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דִּתְנַן: מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מְכוּוָּנוֹת, וְיָרְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְטָבְלוּ (שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת – טְהוֹרִים),
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.
בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – רִאשׁוֹן טָהוֹר, וְהַשֵּׁנִי טָמֵא.
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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ רַגְלָיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן נוֹגְעוֹת בַּמַּיִם – אַף הַשֵּׁנִי טָהוֹר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: הַבָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְטָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל רוּבּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין – טָמֵא; בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: חֶצְיוֹ בְּבִיאָה וְחֶצְיוֹ בִּנְפִילָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: בַּעַל קֶרִי חוֹלֶה, שֶׁנָּתְנוּ עָלָיו תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין מַיִם – טָהוֹר; בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: חֶצְיוֹ בִּטְבִילָה וְחֶצְיוֹ בִּנְתִינָה, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳: אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, אֲבָל גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם –
§ 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,
כָּשֵׁר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֵין צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.
it is valid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר;
Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: If that is so, if the mishna is referring specifically to a case where the document was not produced by both of them, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid.
טַעְמָא דְּאֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָא גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
The Gemara infers: The reason this document is invalid is specifically due to the fact that the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, but if the bill of divorce was produced by both of them would the Rabbis deem it valid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Abaye: Yes, the Rabbis would deem this bill of divorce valid.
וְכִי אֵין גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? מָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא – בְּעֵד אֶחָד; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: And in a case where the bill of divorce was not produced by both of them, with regard to what underlying principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents. In other words, they will think it is possible to ratify other documents by the testimony of one witness. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages do not decree that it is invalid for this reason.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – פָּסוּל. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.
Some say another version of this discussion: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even a bill of divorce produced by both of them is invalid. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that if two people brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas they are required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר; אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם פָּסְלִי רַבָּנַן?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
Abaye said to him: If that is so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If two people say: It was written in our presence, and one person says: It was signed in my presence, then the document is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid. Is it true to say that even when the bill of divorce was produced by both of them the Rabbis deem it invalid? Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to him: Yes.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the tanna’im disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. Consequently, it is necessary for them to testify about both the writing and the signing for her sake, in accordance with the rabbinic decree, even when two people bring the bill of divorce. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the reason for the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and when two people bring a bill of divorce there are people available to ratify it, and therefore the declaration is unnecessary.
לֵימָא דְּרַבָּה וְרָבָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא; רָבָא מְתָרֵץ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא,
The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that the disagreement of Rabba and Rava with regard to the two reasons for the declaration is a dispute between tanna’im? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, as Rava resolves this issue and explains it in accordance with the first version, that the Rabbis agree that two people who bring a bill of divorce are not required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence. Consequently, it is possible that both opinions concur that an agent is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that witnesses will be available to ratify it.
וְרַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ;
And Rabba could have said to you, in accordance with the second formulation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, i.e., two people who bring a bill of divorce are also required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, that everyone agrees that we require them to issue the declaration because people are not experts in the halakha that it must be written for her sake. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the period after they learned to write a bill of divorce for her sake even overseas.
וּבִגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן.
And they disagree with regard to whether there is a rabbinic decree that the bill of divorce is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., the residents overseas will forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. As one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages decree that it is invalid for this reason, and therefore the declaration is still required even after they learned. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The Sages do not decree that it is invalid lest they forget the halakha.
וְלִיפְלוֹג נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵישָׁא! הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר עוּלָּא: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה.
The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda disagree also with regard to the first clause of the mishna, concerning the case where one agent says: It was written in my presence, and the other agent says: It was signed in my presence. Why does he disagree only about a case where two say that the document was written in their presence? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees even with regard to the first clause, as it was already stated with regard to the mishna that Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to the first clause.
מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּזוֹ וְלֹא בְּאַחֶרֶת. מַאי, לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״?!
Rav Oshaya raises an objection to the opinion of Ulla from the following baraita (Tosefta 2:2): Rabbi Yehuda deems the bill of divorce valid in this case but not in another case. What, is it not correct to say that this serves to exclude a case where one says: It was written in my presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence?
לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ; דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, בְּעֵד אֶחָד – נָמֵי לָא גָּזַר; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this serves to exclude a case where only one witness testified: It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to exclude this case? It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a rabbinic decree that it is invalid lest the matter return to its corrupt state, perhaps he also did not decree that it is invalid lest people will come to confuse this case with the typical situation of ratification of legal documents, which cannot be performed with one witness. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that although Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about people forgetting the halakha and therefore holds that there is no longer any reason to be worried about the document not being written for her sake ab initio, nevertheless he is still concerned that a bill of divorce might be confused with other legal documents.
אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
It was also stated, similar to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, but in the name of a different amora, that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה חֲלַשׁ, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּה, לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין צְרִיכִין – מָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ״, מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?! אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתָא הָהוּא
§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn’t they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration. In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain
