## Gittin Daf 15a

###### Gittin 15a:1
[Gittin 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:1)

כְּבִינְתִּי לְבִתִּי, וְהִיא בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה״, וּמֵתָה, וְקִיְּימוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דְּבָרֶיהָ! אָמַר לָהֶם: בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל תִּקְבְּרֵם אִמָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**my brooch [*kevinati*] to my daughter, and** the brooch is worth **twelve hundred dinars. And** this woman subsequently **died, and the Sages fulfilled her statement.** Rabbi Elazar **said to them** that **the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother,** i.e., he cursed them. Rabbi Elazar meant that it is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when dealing with them the Sages did not act in accordance with the *halakha*, but allowed their mother to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister, circumventing the *halakhot* of inheritance.


###### Gittin 15a:2
[Gittin 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:2)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; וְרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִית, לָא אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת; וְ״יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים״ – כְּרַבָּנַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **The first *tanna*** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** who holds that there must be an actual act of acquisition or the money still belongs to the giver. **And Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ya’akov also** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.** However, they add that **even though** the giver **died one does not say: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. And** the Sages in the clause beginning: **Some say,** hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who say that the statement of a person on his deathbed effects acquisition through mere speech.


###### Gittin 15a:3
[Gittin 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:3)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מִיהוּ הֵיכָא דְּמִית אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ – מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ; וְכָאן אָמְרוּ – שׁוּדָא עֲדִיף; וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא – מַעֲשֶׂה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,** who **said** his opinion **in the name of Rabbi Meir,** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar. However,** he maintains that **where** the giver **died we say: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. And the Rabbis say: They should divide** it, because **they** are **uncertain** about the *halakha* in this situation. **And** according to the Sages in the clause beginning: **Here they said, the discretion** of the agent **is preferable. And Rabbi Shimon HaNasi came to teach us** a relevant **incident** but does not express an additional opinion.


###### Gittin 15a:4
[Gittin 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:4)

אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא; נָשִׂיא הוּא, אוֹ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא קָאָמַר? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא. וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ: נָשִׂיא הוּא, אוֹ דְּקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** those studying this issue: **Is** the **Rabbi Shimon HaNasi** mentioned here himself **a *Nasi*, or** does the *baraita* mean **that he spoke in the name of the *Nasi*?** The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear that** which **Rav Yosef,** who was precise in his statements, **says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon HaNasi.** This indicates that he was an actual *Nasi*. **But** you can still **raise the dilemma: Is he a *Nasi*, or** does the *baraita* mean **that he spoke in the name of the *Nasi*,** as Rav Yosef may merely be quoting the above *baraita*? The Gemara has no answer for this question, and states that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Gittin 15a:5
[Gittin 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:5)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא. וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to **the** matter **itself: Rav Yosef says: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon HaNasi,** that the money should be returned to the heirs of the sender. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But don’t we maintain** that **the statement of** a person **on his deathbed is considered written and delivered?** If so, the agent should give the money to the heirs of the recipient.


###### Gittin 15a:6
[Gittin 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:6)

רַב יוֹסֵף מוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּבָרִיא. וְהָא לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ קָאָמַר, וְקַיְימָא לַן: מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת! תְּנִי: יַחְזְרוּ לִמְשַׁלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Yosef establishes** this *halakha* **with regard to a healthy person,** not someone on his deathbed. The Gemara asks: **But he said** that the money should be returned **to the heirs of the sender, and we maintain** that **it is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead,** even if he issued these instructions when he was healthy. The Gemara answers: Emend Rabbi Shimon HaNasi’s statement and **teach: Return** the money **to the sender,** not to his heirs, as this is referring to a case where the sender had not died.


###### Gittin 15a:7
[Gittin 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:7)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמֵּבִיא קַמָּא**


###### Gittin 15a:8
[Gittin 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:8)

**הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט** מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאָמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״; ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ״; ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלּוֹ״ – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and says:** The bill of divorce **was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence;** or if he said: **It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence;** or: **All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence,** i.e., he observed the signing of only one witness; or: **Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence,** in all these cases the document is **invalid.**


###### Gittin 15a:9
[Gittin 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:9)

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, פָּסוּל. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, פָּסוּל; וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״, כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** agent bringing a bill of divorce **says: It was written in my presence, and one** other agent **says: It was signed in my presence,** it is **invalid.** If **two** agents **say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence,** it is **invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems** the document **valid.** If **one** agent **says: It was written in my presence, and two** agents **say: It was signed in our presence,** it is **valid.**


###### Gittin 15a:10
[Gittin 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא – הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״! אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: צָרִיךְ, וְאִי לָא אָמַר כָּשֵׁר; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks with regard to the entire mishna: **Why do I** need all **these further** examples? **Didn’t it teach** these *halakhot* **once,** as the mishna states (2a): **One who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence?** This indicates that if one did not state this declaration, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara explains: **If** the *halakha* were derived **from that** mishna alone, **I would say:** He is **required** to issue this statement *ab initio*, **but if he did not say** it the bill of divorce is nevertheless **valid** after the fact. Therefore, this mishna **teaches us** that the bill of divorce is invalid.


###### Gittin 15a:11
[Gittin 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:11)

״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כּוּלּוֹ״, פָּסוּל. הֵי חֶצְיוֹ? אִלֵּימָא חֶצְיוֹ רִאשׁוֹן, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב בּוֹ אֶלָּא שִׁיטָה אַחַת לִשְׁמָהּ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֶצְיוֹ אַחֲרוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if the agent said: **Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence,** the document is **invalid.** The Gemara asks: With regard to **which half** of the bill of divorce did he claim he saw written? **If we say** that he saw **its first half** written, **but didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: Even if** the husband or scribe **wrote only one line of it for her sake,** the agent **is no longer required** to check if the rest of the bill of divorce was written properly? **Rather, Rav Ashi said:** He testifies that he saw that **its latter half** was written, and he does not testify with regard to the first half, which is the primary section of the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 15a:12
[Gittin 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:12)

״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ״, פָּסוּל. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים עַל חֲתִימַת יַד שֵׁנִי – פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that if he said: **All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence,** i.e., the agent observed the signing of only one of the witnesses, it is **invalid. Rav Ḥisda says: And even** if **two** people **testify to the signature** of the **second** witness, and the court ratifies this signature, nevertheless it is **invalid. What is the reason** for this ruling? After all, the court has the agent’s testimony with regard to one signature and the confirmation of two witnesses for the second signature.


###### Gittin 15a:13
[Gittin 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:13)

אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּקִיּוּם הַגֵּט, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The document must be authenticated **either entirely through** the process of **the ratification of a bill of divorce,** i.e., the bill of divorce must be ratified like any other legal document, by two people attesting to the validity of the signatures of both witnesses, **or it** must be **entirely** ratified **via** the **rabbinic decree** that the agent is deemed credible when he states: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.


###### Gittin 15a:14
[Gittin 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/15a:14)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ אָמַר חַד, כָּשֵׁר; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, פָּסוּל?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this: Is there any** situation in **which if one** person **said** it, the document is **valid,** i.e., if the agent would have attested to the signature of the second witness the bill of divorce would be valid, and **now that there are two** witnesses who attest to the signatures it is **invalid? Rather, Rava says: Even** if