## Gittin Daf 15b

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

הוּא וְאַחֵר מְעִידִין עַל חֲתִימַת יַד שֵׁנִי – פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָתוּ לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, וְקָא נָפֵיק נְכֵי רִיבְעָא דְמָמוֹנָא אַפּוּמָּא דְּחַד סָהֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**he,** i.e., the agent, **and another** person **testify with regard to the signature of the second** witness, the bill of divorce is **invalid. What is the reason** for this? Perhaps people **will come to confuse it with the typical** case of **ratification of** legal **documents,** and will rely on one witness who testifies about his own signature and that of the other signatory, while another witness joins with him to testify with regard to the other signature. **And** as a result of this, **the** full sum of **money, minus a quarter, will be extracted based upon** the testimony **of one witness.** In order to ratify legal documents in general, two witnesses must testify as to the validity of each of the signatures. If the Sages were to allow one witness to testify about his own signature and another witness to join him in testifying about the other signature in the case of a bill of divorce, it may lead to the same method being employed with regard to other legal documents.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ אִיהוּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא, כָּשֵׁר; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא חַד בַּהֲדֵיהּ, פָּסוּל?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to this: Is there any** situation in **which if he** himself **would complete his entire statement** by saying: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, the document would be **valid,** and **now that there is** another **one** who testifies **with him,** the bill of divorce is **invalid?**


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹמֵר ״אֲנִי הוּא עֵד שֵׁנִי״ – פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּקִיּוּם הַגֵּט, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says** that **even** if the agent **says: I am the second witness** who signed the bill of divorce, it is **invalid. What is the reason** for this? A bill of divorce cannot be validated by a combination of two types of credibility. **It** must be authenticated **either entirely through the ratification of the bill of divorce,** in the manner that other documents are ratified, **or it** must be **entirely** ratified **via** the **rabbinic decree,** in which case the testimony of the agent is considered equivalent to that of two people who ratify the signatures.


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

תְּנַן: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כּוּלּוֹ, בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ״, פָּסוּל. אִידַּךְ חֶצְיוֹ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד עֲלֵיהּ כְּלָל; הַשְׁתָּא אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, דְּהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ כְּתִיבָה וְהַאי קָמַסְהֵיד אַכּוּלַּהּ חֲתִימָה, פָּסוּל; חֶצְיוֹ מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof for this claim: **We learned** in the mishna that if an agent for a bill of divorce said: **All of it was written in my presence** and **half of it was signed in my presence,** this bill of divorce is **invalid.** The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** with regard to **the other half of** the bill of divorce? **If we say that there is no** one **who testifies about it at all,** this is problematic: **Now** the mishna taught that if **one** agent **says: It was written in my presence, and one** agent **says: It was signed in my presence,** in **which** case **this** agent **testifies with regard to all** the **writing and that** agent **testifies with regard to all** the **signing,** it is **invalid.** When the agent testifies that only **half of it** was signed in his presence, **is it necessary** to say that the document is invalid?


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

אֶלָּא אוֹ כִּדְרָבָא אוֹ כִּדְרַב אָשֵׁי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna must be teaching that the bill of divorce is invalid even if there is additional testimony with regard to the second signature. This novelty can be explained **either in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava,** who holds that the agent joins with another person to testify about the second signature, **or in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Ashi,** who holds that he testifies about his own signature.


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

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַב חִסְדָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** this is **to exclude** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda,** who declares that the document is invalid even when there is a full ratification of the second signature. Because the mishna merely alludes to the novelty in this clause, without specifying it, one may infer only the lesser novelty. Since Rav Ḥisda’s novelty is greater than that of the other two Sages, had the mishna been taught for that purpose, it should have issued an explicit statement to that effect.


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

אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ לָמָּה לִי? אֶלָּא לֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Rav Ḥisda** could have **said to you: And according to your reasoning, why do I** need the ruling of the mishna which states that if the agent said: **It was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence,** the bill of divorce is invalid? The mishna could simply have stated: If he said: All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence, it is invalid. One would have inferred that it is invalid all the more so if one does not testify with regard to the signature at all. **Rather,** one must say that the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **Not** only **this** but **also that,** i.e., each ensuing statement adds something novel.


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

הָכָא נָמֵי לָא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **here too** the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **Not** only **this** but **also that.** In other words, Rav Ḥisda would answer that the above inference, i.e., that the clause dealing with: It was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence, must be teaching an additional novelty, is incorrect. This is because it is a stylistic feature of the Mishna to teach a less novel case followed by a more novel one, regardless of the fact that had it taught the more novel case first, there would have been no need to mention the less novel case at all. Therefore, there is no need to infer a special, unstated novelty from this clause at all, which means it cannot be cited as proof against Rav Ḥisda’s greater novelty.


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בִּמְחִיצָה אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּגִידּוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Tangentially, the Gemara cites a discussion that involves a similar underlying principle. **Rav Ḥisda says,** with regard to Shabbat domains: **An embankment,** i.e., a height disparity between two surfaces, of **five** handbreadths **and** an additional **partition** of **five** handbreadths, **do not join** together to form a partition of ten handbreadths, which is the minimum height for a partition to enclose a private domain. A halakhic partition is regarded as being composed of ten handbreadths **only if it is** composed **entirely of a partition,** e.g., a fence, **or entirely of the embankment,** e.g., a pit or incline.


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

דָּרֵשׁ מָרִימָר: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה – מִצְטָרְפִין. וְהִלְכְתָא: מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mareimar taught: An embankment** of **five** handbreadths **and a partition** of **five** handbreadths do **join** together to form a partition of ten handbreadths. The Gemara comments: **And the *halakha*** is that **they join** together. Rav Ḥisda’s opinion is analogous to the aforementioned case that a bill of divorce must be either entirely upheld by the agent or entirely upheld by the ratification of its signatures, although the *halakha* is ruled differently in the case of Shabbat domains.


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

בָּעֵי אִילְפָא: יָדַיִם – טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין, אוֹ אֵין טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָא מָשׁוּ בֵּי תְרֵי מֵרְבִיעִית, וְהָא תְּנַן: מֵרְבִיעִית נוֹטְלִין לַיָּדַיִם, לְאֶחָד וַאֲפִילּוּ לִשְׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another case that is based on the same principle. **Ilfa raised a dilemma:** With regard to ritual washing, can one’s **hands** be **ritually pure in halves, or** can they **not** be **ritually pure in halves?** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If we say that two** people **wash with** the requisite one **quarter-***log* of water, and therefore in actuality each one of them washes with only half of a quarter-*log*, **but didn’t we learn** explicitly in a mishna (*Yadayim* 1:1): **With** the amount of **a quarter-***log* **one can wash the hands of one** person **and even of two?** A quarter-*log* of water suffices for one person to wash his hands before eating bread, and even two may wash their hands simultaneously with this amount, if they do so in the correct manner.


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

וְאֶלָּא דְּקָא מָשֵׁי חֲדָא חֲדָא יְדֵיהּ, וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵל יָדוֹ אַחַת בִּנְטִילָה, וְאַחַת בִּשְׁטִיפָה, יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** Ilfa is referring to a case **where** one **washed his** two **hands one by one,** not both hands at the same time. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Yadayim* 2:1): With regard to **one who** purifies **one hand by washing** with a vessel **and one** hand **by immersing** it in a river, **his hands are ritually pure?** This mishna indicates that there is no need for both hands to be washed simultaneously.


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

וְאֶלָּא דְּקָא מָשֵׁי פַּלְגָא פַּלְגָא דְּיָדֵיהּ, וְהָאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יָדַיִם – אֵין טְהוֹרוֹת לַחֲצָאִין! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** Ilfa’s dilemma refers to a case **where he washes his hand in two halves,** i.e., he first washes one half of his hand and next washes the second half of that same hand. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t** the Sages **from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: Hands cannot** be rendered **ritually pure in halves?** If so, one who washes half of his hand and pauses before washing the second half has not performed the act of washing the hands at all. The Gemara answers: **No,** Ilfa’s question is **necessary** only for a case **where there is liquid** that is still **moist** on his hand. When one washes the second half of his hand, some moisture remains on the portion of his hand that he already washed, and therefore one might think that this liquid joins with the water with which he washes the second half of his hand.


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

וְכִי אִיכָּא מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And when there is liquid** that rendered one’s hand **moist, what of it?** Is this a relevant factor? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 8:9):