## Gittin Daf 16b

###### Gittin 16b:1
[Gittin 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:1)

כָּשֵׁר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֵין צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 16b:2
[Gittin 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Gittin 16b:3
[Gittin 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:3)

טַעְמָא דְּאֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָא גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 16b:4
[Gittin 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:4)

וְכִי אֵין גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? מָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא – בְּעֵד אֶחָד; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 16b:5
[Gittin 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:5)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Gittin 16b:6
[Gittin 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Gittin 16b:7
[Gittin 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:7)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 16b:8
[Gittin 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:8)

לֵימָא דְּרַבָּה וְרָבָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא; רָבָא מְתָרֵץ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 16b:9
[Gittin 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:9)

וְרַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 16b:10
[Gittin 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:10)

וּבִגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Gittin 16b:11
[Gittin 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:11)

וְלִיפְלוֹג נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵישָׁא! הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר עוּלָּא: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 16b:12
[Gittin 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:12)

מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּזוֹ וְלֹא בְּאַחֶרֶת. מַאי, לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Gittin 16b:13
[Gittin 16b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 16b:14
[Gittin 16b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:14)

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Gittin 16b:15
[Gittin 16b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/16b:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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**