האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא—Is this a leniency?! It is being severe!

OVERVIEW Our גמרא states, that preferably, two witnesses should be required to testify that the גט is written לשמה; however משום עיגונא אקילא בה רבנן, and one witness is sufficient. To which the גמרא responds: 'האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא', that the repercussions of this קולא can be detrimental to the woman in the long run. Therefore it would be preferable (for the woman) that no leniency be made for her. Rather we should treat her according to the letter of the law, requiring two עדים. Previously we learnt that an ע"א is not believed in a case of דבר שבערוה ואתחזק איסורא. There is an exception to this rule. If a husband is missing, and there is one עד who testifies that he is dead, we believe the עד, and the woman is permitted to remarry. This קולא is a דין דרבנן to alleviate the plight of עגונות. To insure that this leniency should not lead to frivolous testimony by an ע"א, the רבנן instituted harsh consequences for the woman, should the original husband return, after she remarries. They include that she will not be permitted to live with either husband, will lose her כתובות, etc. These penalties are not incurred if the woman remarries based on the testimony of two witnesses. In which case, if her original husband returns, she may return to him, etc. תוספות discusses the differences between these two cases. ------------------ בריש האשה רבה (יבמות פח,א) גבי חומר שהחמרת עליה בסופה – In the beginning of the פרק האשה רבה, concerning (the logic of) ‘the severity that you will eventually impose on her’¹; the גמרא continues this discussion – דפריך לא לחמיר ולא ליקל – And asks: let us not be severe and not be lenient. We will not have to be severe with her (in case her husband returns after she remarried on the basis of one witness), if we will initially not permit her to remarry based on the testimony of only one witness; let us require two עדים – ומשני משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן – And the גמרא replied; out of concern that she may remain an עגונא, the רבנן were lenient and permitted her to get married on the basis of the testimony of an ע"א. This concludes the citation of that גמרא. תוספות responds to an anticipated question: לא שייך למיפרך האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא² – It is not appropriate to ask there as we ask here, ‘is this a leniency that we let her remarry on the basis of an ע"א?! It is being strict’ with her – דאי מצרכת לה תרי ובא בעלה מותרת לחזור כדאמרינן התם – for if you will require two witnesses to testify that her husband died, in order for her to remarry, and then her husband will return after she remarried on the basis of their testimony, then the דין will be that she is permitted to return to her former husband, as the גמרא says there in יבמות. Her ‘marriage’ to the second husband is invalid, since she was an אשת איש the entire time and אין קידושין תופסין בה.** והשתא בחד תצא מזה ומזה – But now** when you permit her to remarry on the testimony of one witness, then if her husband returns, the דין is she must leave both ‘husbands’. She is not permitted to live with either of them. We see therefore that by permitting her to marry on the testimony of one witness, which may seem a leniency, nevertheless it may turn out to be to her detriment; for she will lose both ‘husbands’. The question is: why did not the גמרא in יבמות ask (like here): האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא!? תוספות answers by distinguishing between the two סוגיות. דהתם זימנין דלא אפשר לתקן כשלא ראה אלא אחד שהיה מכיר שהוא בעלה – for there in מס' יבמות, oftentimes it is impossible to institute that two witnesses must testify about her husband’s death, for there are instances where only one person, who recognized that he was her husband, saw him die – ואפילו אם היו שם רבים מי יביאם בכאן להעיד – And even if many people, that recognized him, saw him die there, nevertheless who will bring them here to testify?! Therefore we cannot require two witnesses to testify, because there will be occurrences where we will not have two witnesses, and she will remain an עגונה. Therefore we must be lenient and allow her to remarry based on the testimony of an ע"א. אבל כאן יכול לשלחו בשנים – However here, in the case of שליח הגט, he can send the גט with two שלוחים, who will testify that it is לשמה. There is no need to be lenient if this leniency will eventually turn out to be a חומרא.

SUMMARY The question האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא is appropriate by שליח הגט. We should require that the husband send the גט with two שלוחים, who will testify that the גט was written לשמה, thereby avoiding any possible contention by the בעל, which may lead to severe consequences for the woman. In the case of האשה שהלכה בעלה למדה"י, we cannot demand, for the sake of the woman, that two עדים testify that the בעל died, for many times two עדים will not be available to testify. Therefore, if we want to prevent עגונות, we have no choice, but to accept the testimony of an ע"א.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How do we differentiate between the sגמרא' question (in יבמות): 'לא לחמיר ולא ליקל' and תוספות proposed question for the גמרא there: 'האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא'?
2. How can we differentiate between the answer משום עיגונא אקילא בה רבנן, which is given in מסכת יבמות, and the same answer which is given here?
3. תוספות previously³ explained that the concern of לשמה is only for the לעז which may result from ערעור הבעל (but there is no serious concern of שלא לשמה). What was תוספות question on the גמרא of יבמות?⁴ There the woman will make sure that her husband is dead before she remarries because of the consequences she will suffer if he returns. However here even if we know that the גט was written לשמה, nevertheless the husband may come just to be מוציא לעז, and she will not be protected from this לעז, therefore we require two עדים. How can תוספות compare the two סוגיות?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there is discussing the case of a woman whose husband left. If one witness testifies that the husband is dead, she may remarry, based on his testimony. The גמרא asks how can an ע"א be believed against a חזקת אשת איש? The גמרא responds that since the woman is aware that in case she will remarry and her original husband will return, there will be serious repercussions, therefore she will be very careful to be sure that her husband is indeed dead before she remarries. ² Our גמרא was not satisfied with the answer of משום עיגונא אקילא בה רבנן and asked האי קולא הוא וכו' (and two שלוחים should be required); why is the גמרא there satisfied with the answer of משעום עיגונא וכו', and does not also ask האי קולא הוא וכו' (to require two עדים)! See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ³ ב,ב ד"ה לפי (הב'). ⁴ See footnote # 2. ⁵ See גליון הש"ס להגרע"א and אמ"ה # 86.

חד¹ אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה—One; the husband may come, contest the גט and invalidate it

OVERVIEW תוספות stated previously² that the reason why the רבנן require saying בפ"נ is, כדי שלא יערער הבעל. The גמרא states that if one שליח is נאמן to say בפ"נ, then there will be a problem if אתי בעל ומערער, because ופסיל ליה. Our תוספות will be discussing two issues. First, what is meant by the words 'ופסיל ליה'? Second, what did the גמרא (when asking this question) think, is being accomplished by saying בפ"נ?

יש לפרש דפסיל ליה ממש – We can interpret the גמרא to mean that the husband, by contesting the גט, and contradicting the sשליח' testimony, will actually invalidate the גט. The גט will be a גט פסול, and the woman will not be able to remarry with this גט. אף על גב דלא מהימן וליכא אלא לעז בעלמא מיפסל – Even though the husband is not actually believed³ in his claim to contest the גט and there is no real concern for the כשרות of the גט; merely idle gossip caused by the husband’s (false) claims, nevertheless the גט will be considered ⁴פסול, and בי"ד will require the woman to receive another גט before she will be permitted to remarry⁵. תוספות poses a question: ואם תאמר אם כן מאי סלקא דעתין דמהני בפני נכתב⁶ כיון דאכתי איכא לעז – And if you will say; if this is true, that if the husband contests the גט, then the גט will be פסול, despite the fact that the שליח said בפ"נ, what did the גמרא originally think that בפ"נ would accomplish to validate the גט since there still will be gossip which will nullify the גט. תוספות explained previously that the reason for saying בפ"נ is because we are concerned that the husband⁷ will contest the גט⁸ (thereby making it פסול). This seemingly means that once the שליח says בפ"נ, the בעל cannot contest this גט, for that is the purpose of saying בפ"נ. Now, however, the גמרא is saying that if the בעל is מערער the גט will (still) be פסול on account of לעז, even if the שליח says בפ"נ. The question here is that there is no point at all of saying ⁹בפ"נ. Instead of asking האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא¹⁰, the גמרא should have said that since there will still be a לעז if the husband is מערער and the גט will be פסול, therefore nothing was accomplished¹¹ by having the שליח say בפ"נ. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דסלקא דעתין דמהני דרוב פעמים לא יוציא שיסבור שלא יאמינוהו -– And one can say that originally the גמרא thought that saying בפ"נ would help to the extent that in a majority of situations the husband will not foment gossip, once the שליח says בפ"נ for the husband (erroneously) imagines that he will not be believed against the testimony of the שליח. It is to this extent only, that בפ"נ is useful. It may prevent the husband from being מערער. Therefore the גמרא cannot ask what does בפ"נ accomplish. ומיהו אי מפיק ליה מיפסל – However, if the husband does foment gossip by contesting the גט, the גט will be פסול. The woman will require a new גט, before בי"ד will permit her to remarry. Therefore the גמרא asks that this קולא can eventually become a חומרא if the בעל is מערער. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this interpretation, and answers it: ולמאי דסלקא דעתין הא דקתני אם יש עליו עוררים יתקיים בחותמיו – And according to the understanding of the גמרא at this point, that the ערעור הבעל will be פוסל the גט despite the saying of בפ"נ, it will be necessary to say; that which the משנה states; ‘if there are those who contest this גט it should be authenticated by its signatories’; which (seemingly) refers only to a גט that was brought in א"י, where בפ"נ is not said. Nevertheless, at this point in the גמרא, where we assume that ערעור הבעל is פוסל, even when בפ"נ was said, we will be forced to say that the phrase ואם יש עליו עוררים etc. – קאי נמי¹² אהמביא גט ממדינת הים – refers also to the case of where one brought a גט ממדה"י and said בפ"נ, nevertheless if the בעל is מערער, the דין is יתקיים בחותמיו¹³. This entire discussion is only in the הוה אמינא of this גמרא. It is only then that the גמרא is of the opinion that ערעור הבעל will be פוסל the גט מטעם לעז. The conclusion of the גמרא is different, as תוספות will now conclude: ומשני מידק דייק ולא אתי בעל ומערער – And the גמרא responds to the concern that the בעל will be מערער; saying that the שליח will be very scrupulous that the גט be executed properly (so as not to soil his reputation) and the husband will not come to contest¹⁴ the גט.¹⁵ ואפילו יערער לא יאמינוהו וליכא לעז כלל – And furthermore even if he will be מערער he will not be believed by anyone, and therefore there is no לעז at all even by the populace at large. The people all know that the שליח is very meticulous and has no reason to lie, as opposed to the בעל, who may be suspect. The people will assume (correctly) that the בעל is lying. The גט will therefore be כשר. This concludes the first interpretation of תוספות, which is of the opinion that in the הוה אמינא, the גמרא maintained that ערעור הבעל will be פוסל the גט on account of לעז, even if בפ"נ was said. תוספות will now state an opposing view. ומיהו אין נראה לרבינו יצחק לפרש כן שיהא פסול משום לעז בעלמא – However the ר"י does not agree that we should interpret the גמרא in this manner that the גט should be פסול on account of idle gossip – כיון דקים לן שהוא כשר – since בי"ד is satisfied¹⁶ that the גט is כשר. ועוד מדלא תנן ברישא המביא גט ממדינת הים אם יש עליו עוררין וכולי – And an additional proof that the בעל is not נאמן if he is מערער against the שליח, since the משנה did not state in the first case (where the גט was brought ממדה"י and the שליח says בפ"נ), that if ‘someone brings a גט ממדה"י and the husband contests it, etc’., it should be מקויים,**** which the משנה should have stated according to the previous opinion in תוספות – כדקתני סיפא – As in fact the משנה does state it in the סיפא. The fact that the משנה does not state it in the רישא, indicates that at no point did we think that the בעל would be believed against the sשליח' saying of בפ"נ. What then does the גמרא mean when saying: חד אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה, since the ר"י maintains that the בעל will not be believed, even in the הו"א? תוספות concludes: ונראה לפרש דפסיל ליה היינו שיאמינוהו ללעז – And it appears to be that the interpretation of the words: 'דפסיל ליה' is that the people will believe the לעז. This is something that is detrimental to the woman; people may not want to marry her, etc. That is the חומרא which we are concerned about. אבל מכל מקום הגט כשר – Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that there may be לעז, the גט is כשר. She will be allowed to remarry despite the לעז.**** The גמרא will conclude that since the שליח is מידק דייק, there is not even לעז against the woman.

SUMMARY There are two ways in understanding the flow of the גמרא. The first is that the גמרא in the הו"א thought that if the בעל is מערער (even) after the שליח says בפ"נ, he will be פוסל the גט. The reason why the גט will be פסול is (not because we actually believe the ערעור; which we do not, but rather), because the ערעור הבעל will cause a הוצאת לעז on the woman, and we do not want her to get married under these circumstances. According to this הו"א that ערעור will be פוסל the גט in spite of בפ"נ, we would have to conclude; a) the purpose of saying בפ"נ is (only) to discourage the husband from being מערער, and b) that when the משנה states: אם יש עליו עוררים יתקיים בחותמיו, it refers both to א"י and חו"ל, even when the שליח said בפ"נ. The second interpretation (according to the ר"י) is that there never was a סברא that ערעור הבעל should be פוסל the גט if the שליח says ¹⁷בפ"נ. When the גמרא states: חד אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה; that means that people will believe the לעז and will gossip about this woman. This will be detrimental to her. בי"ד however will permit her to remarry once the שליח testified that בפ"נ. Therefore this interpretation will not agree with conclusions a)¹⁸ and b) stated above¹⁹. This disagreement is only concerning the הו"א of the גמרא. In the מסקנא, all will agree that once the שליח says בפ"נ, the ערעור הבעל will not be heeded at all.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Explain why תוספות question (וא"ת),²⁰ is only if we follow תוספות interpretation of ורבנן הוא דאצרוך, but it is no question according to sרש"י' interpretation.²¹
2. In explaining the תירוץ (of the גמרא that מידק דייק), why does תוספות have to say²² that the בעל will not be מערער? It would be sufficient to say (as תוספות concludes) that he will not be believed.
3. How does the ר"י understand, according to the הו"א, what בפ"נ accomplishes? Seemingly without the בפ"נ there is only a חשש of לעז, and לעז, as the ר"י says, cannot be פוסל הגט²³.
4. What are the relative merits and difficulties of understanding our גמרא according to each of תוספות interpretations?

footnotes: ¹ It is unclear whether תוספות is referring to the first 'חד אתי בעל וכו'', which is discussing רבה, or the second 'חד אתי בעל וכו'', which is discussing רבא. From the תוס' הרא"ש and מהרש"א it appears that תוס' is referring to the first 'חד'. The מהר"ם maintains that it is the second, See footnotes # 6, 13. ² סוף ד"ה ורבנן (ב,ב [ג,א]). ³ He is not believed (according to רבה) since רוב בקיאין, וסתם ספרי דדייני גמירי, or (according to רבא) since עדים החתומים על השטר וכו'; and in addition the שליח is testifying בפ"נ. ⁴ It will be פסול only מדרבנן. However, מן התורה it is a valid גט. ⁵ בי"ד will not allow her to remarry under these circumstances where people will gossip about her marital status. ⁶ This may seemingly indicate that תוספות is discussing the סוגית הגמרא according to רבה, since תוספות mentions only בפני נכתב and not בפני נחתם. See footnote #1. ⁷ There is no concern on the part of בי"ד itself that the גט may be פסול. ⁸ See end of תוס' ב,ב ד"ה ורבנן (on דף ג,א). ⁹ If the בעל is not מערער, we do not need בפ"נ, according to תוספות, because there is no serious חשש. If the בעל is מערער, then בפ"נ will not help. The גט will be פסול on account of the לעז. ¹⁰ The question 'האי קולא וכו'', indicates that even though you may have accomplished something presently, nevertheless it may be detrimental in the future. Now however it seems that nothing at all was accomplished by the saying of בפ"נ. ¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 ¹² The משנה states this rule – יתקיים בחותמיו – immediately after stating המביא גט בארץ ישראל, which indicates that this rule applies only in א"י where בפ"נ is not said, and not from מדה"י when בפ"נ is said. ¹³ Seemingly this would indicate that תוס' is discussing the סוגית הגמרא according to רבא. See footnote # 1. If we interpret תוס' to be discussing רבה, we can say that יתקיים בחותמיו would mean, to ask the עדים if it was written לשמה. See מהר"ם שי"ף. ¹⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁵ Presumably the husband is present during the writing and signing of the גט. He observes how the שליח is meticulously watching that everything be done properly. This will discourage him from being מערער, for he is convinced that he will not be believed. ¹⁶ See previous תוס' ב,ב ד"ה לפי (הב') וכו'. ¹⁷ The first interpretation will claim that this is contrary to the simple reading of the test: 'ופסיל ליה'. ¹⁸ However, see מהר"ם שי"ף. ¹⁹ This second interpretation will maintain that both these conclusions are faulty. Conclusion ‘a)’ which states that the whole תקנה of saying בפ"נ has no real power, it is just an attempt to dissuade the בעל from being מערער, seems like no תקנה at all. Conclusion ‘b)’ which states that ואם יש עליו עוררין applies to חו"ל seems to defy the simple reading of the משנה that it applies to א"י exclusively. ²⁰ See footnote # 11. ²¹ See נח"מ. ²² See footnote # 14. ²³ See מהרש"א (הארוך), מהר"ם שי"ף and נח"מ.

אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא—It may cause a confusion regarding the authentication of documents in general.

OVERVIEW According to רבא, the reason that the שליח says בפני נכתב is only to differentiate it from ¹קיום שטרות. There is (seemingly) no significance or purpose in this testimony itself. Our תוספות explains when בפני נכתב will prevent the אתי לאיחלופי.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כיון דאין צריך לומר בפני נכתב אלא משום איחלופי – And if you will say; since it is not really necessary for the שליח to say בפני נכתב; it is said only because we should not confuse קיום שטרות with קיום חגט. According to רבא we are not concerned about לשמה. Our concern is only to ascertain that the husband actually sent the גט. To verify this, all that is required is that we know that we have proper witnesses. This is accomplished by the שליח saying בפני נחתם. The question is – אמאי פסיל בריש פרק ב' (לקמן דף טו,א) – Why does the גמרא in the beginning of the second פרק interpret the משנה which states that if the שליח said בפני נכתב חציו it is פסול, that the משנה is (only) referring to the case where the שליח said – בפני נכתב חציו אחרון טפי מחציו ראשון² – The last half of the גט was written in my presence; only then is the גט פסול. The question is: why is the גט פסול in this case more than if he said the first half of the גט only, was written in my presence; in which case the גט would be ³כשר. If we were to assume (like רבה) that בפני נכתב is said for the purpose of verifying that the גט was written לשמה, it is understood that if the first half was written לשמה then there is no problem with the גט, as opposed to if only the second half was written לשמה. According to רבא, however, we are not concerned whether the גט was written לשמה. The only purpose of saying בפני נכתב is to differentiate קיום הגט from קיום שטרות. What difference should there be if he said בפ"נ חציו ראשון or בפ"נ חציו אחרון; in either case seemingly it will be differentiated from קיום שטרות, where no בפני נכתב is said at all. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דבחציו ראשון יש בו שם האיש והאשה והזמן שהוא עיקר הגט – And one can say; that in the first half of the גט there is therein the names of the husband and the wife, and the date of the divorce which is the essence of the גט. When the שליח testifies that these were written in his presence, since they are an essential part of the גט, therefore –

It is apparent that a pertinent testimony⁴ is being presented before the בי"ד and therefore the קיום הגט will not be confused with קיום שטרות. Everyone notices that this is not a regular קיום, for additional testimony is being offered here, which is not offered by קיום שטרות. If, however, the שליח says בפני נכתב חציו אחרון, since that part of the גט is merely a standard form⁵; nothing of substance is written there that will distinguish it from other גיטין, therefore no one will take this statement of בפני נכתב חציו אחרון as being serious testimony. People will assume that the שליח is just relating what happened, but there is no real testimony in this statement. The only testimony that will be considered relevant is the בפני נחתם. Thus it will appear as a regular קיום שטרות. Therefore we are concerned that אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא and the גט is פסול.

SUMMARY Saying בפני נכתב on the (first) part of the גט which contains pertinent information will be taken as a relevant testimony. This will prevent the אתי לאיחלופי. Saying בפני נכתב, only on the remainder of the גט, will not be viewed as relevant testimony. It will not therefore prevent the אתי לאיחלופי.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why could not תוספות ask his question on the משנה directly; why is בפני נכתב חציו פסול? Why did תוספות find it necessary to quote the גמרא⁶ that differentiates between בפ"נ חציו ראשון and בפ"נ חציו אחרון?
2. Explain the difference of our understanding how בפני נכתב will prevent the אתי לאיחלופי, according to the קשיא, as opposed to the תירוץ, of תוספות.

footnotes: ¹ One should not make the mistake that since בפני נחתם is valid even with only one עד, therefore all קיום שטרות can also be accomplished with even only one עד. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ The גמרא there quotes ר"א who says 'אפילו לא כתב בו אלא שיטה אחת לשמה שוב אינו צריך'. This is interpreted (by רש"י [and here in תוספות]) to mean the first line of the גט where the names of the man and the woman are written. ⁴ See תוס' הרא"ש who states: שזה עיקר העדות, ועי' בנח"מ. ⁵ In fact it may be written by the סופר שלא לשמה, without the instruction of the בעל. ⁶ See footnote # 2.

הכא¹ בפני—Here he says; ‘in my presence’

OVERVIEW רבה maintains that if the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of קיום עדי הגט, then there is no need to say בפני נכתב,. He rejects sרבא' argument that בפני נכתב is required in order דלא אתי לאיחלופי, for רבה maintains that קיום הגט and קיום שטרות are totally different. קיום הגט requires the שליח to say בפני, while for קיום שטרות even ידעתי is sufficient. Therefore, רבה maintains there will be no איחלופי. In order for this refutation to be valid, we must assume that (רבה is of the opinion that) רבא will also agree to sרבה' argument that ידעתי will not be valid by a גט, and only בפני is acceptable. Otherwise how is רבה refuting רבא? The question here is how do we know that רבא agrees with this assumption, and why does he agree. In fact, later the גמרא will state, that רבא maintains, אטו הכא כי אמרי ידעינן מי לא מהימני, which indicates that ידענו is valid. In the following three² תוספות, it will become relatively clear how תוספות approaches these issues. To testify that the גט was executed לשמה, one need be at the (writing and) signing of the גט and testify בפ"נ ובפ"נ. Otherwise it is hearsay and not an admissible testimony. To testify that he recognizes the signatures, one need not be present at the signing.

אבל ידעתי³ אין מועיל – However, if the שליח הגט will say I know (that it was written לשמה and I recognize)**** the signatures, it will not validate the גט. וטעמא דכשאמר בפני נכתב ונחתם דייק טפי – and as to the reason⁴ why it is necessary for the שליח to say בפני, and ידעתי is not sufficient, continues תוספות, for when he testifies that it was written and signed in my presence he is more meticulous to be assured that it was indeed executed properly – דמרע אנפשיה טובא כשאמר בפני נעשה הכל והוא לא ראה מכשאמר ידעתי – For he will incriminate himself greatly when he says ‘everything was done properly in my presence’ when in fact he did not see it actually happen. This incrimination is greater than in a case where he merely said ‘I know the signatures’.⁵ רבא counters that even though ידעתי is not נאמן by one שליח, nevertheless if two people say ידענו they will be believed. Therefore, there will be the חשש of איחלופי if the שליח will not say בפני נכתב; as follows: By קיום הגט, if two people will testify ידענו (instead of the שליח) they will be נאמן, just as by קיום שטרות.⁶ This makes קיום הגט similar to קיום שטרות. In both instances ידענו is believed. People will then (mistakenly) say, just as by קיום הגט one שליח is נאמן for קיום by saying בפני נחתם, the same should be true by קיום שטרות. Therefore according to רבא the שליח is required to say בפני נכתב, to prevent איחלופי. In order for רבה to justify his dispute with רבא, he (רבה) must maintain that (even if we were to assume to טעם of קיום, nevertheless) לא אתי לאיחלופי. The reason why (רבה maintains that) לא אתי לאיחלופי must be⁷ because רבה maintains that even if two people testify ידענו, it is not valid by גיטין. The following question (on רבה) is; why should two עדים not be believed when they say ידענו (if we are to assume, as רבה must [in order to refute רבא], that the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of קיום)? תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אמאי לא מהני ידעתי לרבה כמו לרבא – And if you will say; why indeed is ידענו⁸ not valid according to רבה as opposed to רבא who maintains that it is valid – על כרחך משום דלרבה הוי טעמא משום לשמה – Perforce you will have to say, that ידענו אינו מועיל because according to רבה the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of לשמה. Therefore it follows that even if two people claim that they know that it was written לשמה (but they themselves did not see it being written לשמה), it is not an acceptable testimony. It is merely hearsay. If, however, the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of קיום, then if עדים say ידענו (we recognize the חתימות), it would be a proper קיום, so – ואכתי תקשי רבה מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבא דמפרש טעמא משום קיום – The original question remains; why does רבה not agree with רבא who explains that the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of קיום therefore it would subsequently follow, that if the reason for בפ"נ is קיום, then – ויועיל ידעתי וצריך בפני נכתב דלא אתי לאיחלופי – and ידענו would be a valid testimony, for two עדים are being מקיים the גט and the reason why it is necessary for the שליח to state בפני נכתב, is that we should not confuse קיום שטרות which require two עדים with קיום הגט, where one שליח is believed (if he says בפ"נ ובפ"נ). In summation: רבה disagrees with רבא, because according to רבא the שליח should not be required to say בפני נכתב. It has nothing to do with קיום. However רבא, while he agrees that בפני נכתב is not necessary for קיום, nevertheless he maintains that בפני נכתב needs to be said to avoid איחלופי. The question whether there is a concern of אתי לאיחלופי or not, hinges on whether ידענו is believed. If ידענו is נאמן then there is איחלופי, and if ידענו is not נאמן, then there is no חשש of איחלופי. The question whether ידענו is believed depends on the reason for saying בפ"נ. If it is because of לשמה, then ידענו cannot be believed since it is hearsay. If we say בפ"נ on account of קיום, then ידענו is a proper קיום. Therefore רבה cannot claim that רבא is wrong in maintaining that there is a חשש of איחלופי since ידענו is not valid, because according to רבא who holds of קיום, then ידענו is נאמן. רבה should agree that according to רבא, saying ידענו is acceptable. The question remains why רבה disagrees with רבא. If רבה were to accept the reason of קיום, then ידענו would be נאמן, which, in turn, will explain the need to say בפני נכתב in order to prevent איחלופי, and everything works out! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דמכח מתניתין דבריש בפרק ב' (לקמן דף טו,א) – The ר"י says that based on a משנה in the beginning of the second פרק, is where**** רבה derives the ruling that ידענו is unacceptable by גיטין. He does not base his ruling (only) on a סברא – דקתני אחד אומר בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר – for the משנה states there: ‘If one person testifies בפני נכתב and two people testify בפנינו נחתם, the גט is כשר’. From the fact that the משנה states that the גט is כשר when the two testify that it was signed in our presence, and the משנה did not state that it would be כשר if the two testified that we recognize the חתימות – משמע ליה לרבה דידענו לא מהני – רבה infers from this משנה that ידענו is not acceptable⁹. This is a ruling based on the משנה, and not merely on logic. One may argue the reason of this ruling; however the ruling is clear that ידענו לא מהני. Therefore there is no אתי לאיחלופי. Therefore if the טעם of בפ"נ is on account of קיום, there is no need for בפני נכתב. That is why רבה does not agree with רבא.

SUMMARY Both רבה and רבא agree that if a single שליח says ידעתי concerning the חתימות he will not be believed. The חכמים believe him only if he says בפני, for then he is very much מדייק in order not to be מרע נפשיה. Concerning ידענו by two עדים for קיום הגט there is an argument between רבה and רבא. רבה maintains אינו נאמן and therefore לא אתי לאיחלופי, while רבא maintains נאמן and therefore אתי לאיחלופי. The reason why רבה maintains that ידענו is not נאמן is not merely because he is of the opinion that בפ"נ is said on account of לשמה, thereby automatically invalidating ידענו. If this were the only reason we would remain with the question why does רבה disagree with רבא. Rather רבה infers from a משנה that ידענו לא מהני. The משנה states that if one person said בפני נכתב and two people said בפני נחתם, the גט is כשר. If ידענו would also be כשר, the משנה should have stated instead that if two people said ידענו it is (also) כשר. The fact the משנה did not state that ידענו is כשר, is ample proof according to רבה that ידענו לא מהני.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות assumes that רבה must maintain ידענו לא מהני.¹⁰ Otherwise he would agree with רבא that אתי לאיחלופי. Why cannot we say that רבה agrees that according to רבא the rule is that ידענו מהני? Nevertheless he does not agree with רבא that ידענו is a cause for אתי לאיחלופי. If ידעתי would be נאמן, that would be cause for איחלופי, but not ידענו. The people will only see that two עדים are believed¹¹ for קיום הגט.¹² Appendix The מהרש"ל is גורס ידעתי in the entire תוספות as opposed to the other commentaries, whose opinion was cited above. According to the מהרש"ל this תוספות is in disagreement with the following תוספות, and accepts the opinion of רש"י that רבה and רבא argue whether ידעתי is נאמן. Originally תוספות understood that according to רבה, saying ידעתי is not valid since in our משנה it states clearly that the שליח must say בפני. Furthermore, רבה maintains, that even if the reason for בפ"נ would be on account of קיום, as רבא maintains, nevertheless the ruling of the משנה which requires בפני is logical. בפני is a stronger deterrent to lying than ידענו is. רבא will maintain that ידעתי is נאמן. When the משנה states that the שליח is required to say בפני, that is only the preferable requirement – לכתחילה; if however the שליח did not say בפני, he said ידעתי instead, it will nevertheless be valid – בדיעבד. תוספות asks that seemingly this מחלוקת between רבה and רבא if ידעתי is נאמן בדיעבד, is dependent on the other מחלוקת between רבה and רבא if בפ"נ is on account of לשמה or an account of קיום; as explained at length previously. תוספות answers that רבה infers from the משנה that even ידענו is not valid, so certainly ידעתי is not נאמן.

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות is better understood after previously learning the following תוספות ד"ה אטו. ² ד"ה הכא, אטו, מאן. ³ The מהרש"א is גורס 'ידענו' here as well. See footnote # 8. It is not clear according to this גירסא what תוספות explanation is, either according to רבה or רבא. Seemingly תוס' reasoning is not necessary according to רבה, since it is hearsay if they say ידענו, so they will surely not be believed. See following footnote. רבא on the other hand maintains that ידענו is accepted, ועי' בתפא"י, וצ"ע. ⁴ According to רבה that בפ"נ is the testimony that the גט was executed לשמה, it is obvious that ידעתי is not valid. One cannot testify that the גט was executed לשמה, unless he was present at the writing and signing of the גט. Otherwise it is hearsay. רבה, however, claims that everyone, including רבא will agree that ידעתי is not valid. תוספות is explaining that even if the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of קיום, nevertheless the שליח will not be believed if he merely says ‘I recognize the signatures’. ⁵ In the latter case, if he is disproved, he can always claim that he made a legitimate mistake. In the former case, however, if he is disproved, there is no way he can justify his lie. That is why we require the שליח to testify בפני, for this will assure us that he will be very meticulous in his preparation and subsequent testimony. We have now established that ידעתי will not be valid neither according to רבה or רבא. Therefore רבה maintains that there is no איחלופי. ⁶ See פ' ר' משולם in the following תוס' ד"ה אטו. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ Most commentaries agree that the words ידעתי in this תוספות (from this point on) should be read or understood as ידענו. We are discussing two עדים who claim they recognize the חתימות. The מהרש"א is גורס ידענו in this entire תוספות. See footnote # 3. See ‘Appendix’. ⁹ The commentaries (see מהר"ם) ask; if רבה infers from that משנה that ידענו לא מהני, then he can refute רבא directly from that משנה, as follows: How can רבא say that the reason is on account of קיום, for if that is so, then ידענו should be acceptable since it is a proper קיום. The only explanation why ידענו לא מהני, is, that we assume the טעם of לשמה. They answer: from that משנה alone רבא cannot be refuted. רבא will claim that the reason why ידענו לא מהני is because of אתי לאיחלופי. The question will then be, however, since ידענו לא מהני on account of איחלופי, why does our משנה require the saying of בפני נכתב, since there will be no איחלופי because ידענו לא מהני. See תוספות ד"ה מאן footnote # 14. (See [however] נח"מ.) ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. ¹¹ See following תוס' ד"ה אטו in the פירוש ר' משולם footnote # 12. ¹² See מהוד"ב, בית יהודה and (עד"ז) in סוכ"ד אות נג (בד"ה ואכתי).

אטו כי אמרי ידענו מי לא מהימני—If they would say ‘we know’, would they not be believed!?

OVERVIEW רבה maintains that according to רבא there is no need to say בפני נכתב. There is no חשש of אתי לאיחלופי since by קיום הגט the testimony of בפני is required, and by קיום שטרות the testimony of ידעתי is sufficient. רבא replies that by גט, the usage of ידענו is also acceptable. Therefore there is the חשש of אתי לאיחלופי וכו'. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to what the גמרא means when it says that ידענו is valid by קיום הגט.

פירש בקונטרס הואיל ולדידיה טעמא משום קיומא מה לי בפני מה לי יודע אני- רש"י explains¹ that since according to רבא the reason for saying בפ"נ is to be מקיים the עדי הגט, what difference is there whether he says בפני נחתם, or if he says I recognize the signatures. If בפני is sufficient, then יודע אני is also sufficient for קיום הגט. משמע שרוצה לומר דשליח מהימן כי אמר יודע אני – It seems² that רש"י wants to say, that according to רבא the שליח will be believed if he merely states, ‘I recognize’ the signatures. He does not need to say בפני נחתם to validate the גט; even 'יודע אני' is sufficient³. תוספות presents a possible difficulty with this interpretation: והא דנקט כי אמרי ידענו לשון רבים ולא אמר כי אמר ידעתי – And how is it that the גמרא used the term: ‘if they said we know’, in the plural form⁴ and the גמרא did not use the singular: ‘if he said I know’. This would have been the more correct version since according to רש"י, even one שליח is believed to say ידעתי. Why are we using the plural? תוספות answers; משום דאשלוחין בעלמא קאי – Because the גמרא is referring to all the שלוחים in general that bring גיטין from מדינת הים. The גמרא should be understood as follows: All the שלוחים will be believed if they say ידענו. It really means that each שליח individually will be believed if he says ידעתי. תוספות presents another possible challenge to פירוש רש"י ולעיל לא בעי למימר ידעתי איכא בינייהו – And previously when the גמרא was offering various נפקא מינה לדינא between רבה and רבא, the גמרא there did not want to say that there is a difference between רבה and רבא if the שליח said ידעתי and not בפ"נ. According to רבה it would not suffice, and according to רבא it will validate the גט. Why indeed did the גמרא not offer this difference if we are to follow sרש"י' interpretation?⁵ תוספות answers: דלא בעי למינקט אלא הנהו דלמר צריך ולמר לא צריך – Because the גמרא did not want to state all possible differences between רבה and רבא; rather the גמרא was interested in stating only⁶ these differences, where according to one master, it would be necessary to say בפ"נ and according to the**** other master it is not necessary to say anything. Therefore the גמרא could not have said: 'ידעתי איכא בינייהו', for according to both רבה and רבא something must be said; either בפ"נ or ידעתי. תוספות will now refute sרש"י' interpretation that a single שליח will be believed (according to רבא) if he says ידעתי and not בפ"נ. אבל תימה הוא דבכל דוכתא דנקט לרבא בפני נחתם לאו דוקא – However, this is incredulous that everywhere that בפ"נ is mentioned, according to רבא it does not necessarily mean**** that the שליח must say בפ"נ, for he may say ידעתי instead. תוספות finds it too far fetched to say that when the גמרא uses the term בפני it is inexact, and ידעתי will suffice. תוספות asks an additional question on פירש"י: ועוד אי בחד נמי מהני ידעתי היכי קאמר רבא בריש פרק ב' (לקמן דף טו,א) – And furthermore if as רש"י maintains, that by one שליח also, ידעתי is sufficient for קיום הגט, how can רבא say in the beginning of the second פרק, that⁷ – אפילו הוא ואחר מעידין על חתימת עד שני פסול – Even if the שליח and another person testify to authenticate the signature of the second witness, nevertheless the גט is פסול – תוספות asks, how can רבא say such a דין – דאי לא הוה אלא האי שליח דמכיר שתי חתימות הוה כשר – For if there would only be this שליח who is testifying that he recognizes⁸ both signatures, then it would have been כשר; this is the opinion of רש"י – והשתא משום דבא אחד מהשוק לסייעו בחתימת שני יפסול – But now since someone came from the marketplace to help him authenticate the second signature it should be פסול?! Let us imagine that the second person never came; according to רש"י it would be כשר. Why should this second person’s supporting testimony diminish the כשרות of the גט?! תוספות will offer sרש"י own apparent answer to this question and refute it: אף על גב דבקונטרס פירש התם דהיינו הא דפריך ליה רב אשי – Even though רש"י (because of the difficulty presented here by תוספות) explains there⁹ that this (question that תוספות is asking) is indeed what רב אשי refutes רבא, saying – מי איכא מידי דאילו מסיק איהו לכולא דיבורא כשר וכולי – Can there be such a case that if he himself would have concluded the entire statement (as in this case, if the שליח would have concluded by himself; ‘I recognize the other signature’) it would be כשר etc., and just because someone else assists him in confirming the second signature it should be פסול?!**** If we are to assume that this is indeed sרב אשי' question on רבא, then there is no question on רש"י. However, תוספות does not accept sרש"י' interpretation, that this question that תוספות is asking on רבא is identical to sרב אשי' question on רבא, as תוספות continues – מכל מקום אין סברא כלל שהיה רבא טועה בכך – Notwithstanding what רש"י states that רב אשי is actually asking תוספות question on רבא, however it is completely illogical that רבא should have made such an error, that if the שליח and another עד testify that they recognize the second signature it will be פסול; since רבא is of the opinion that (even) if there is no other עד, the testimony of the שליח will suffice if he says ידעתי.¹⁰ Therefore we must say that ידעתי is an insufficient testimony for a single שליח, and he is not believed unless he says בפני (according to both רבה and רבא).¹¹ תוספות offers his position regarding ידעתי and ידענו: ונראה דידעתי לא מהני אפילו לרבא – And it is the opinion of תוספות that ידעתי will not be a sufficient testimony even according to רבא who says that the reason for saying בפני נחתם is for קיום הגט. Nevertheless ידעתי will not validate the גט – עד שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם משום דדייק טפי כדפירשנו – Unless he says בפ"נ ובפ"נ, because when he has to say בפני then he is exceedingly meticulous that the גט be executed in the proper manner, as we previously¹² explained; and only then do we believe him. תוספות explains the גמרא:¹³ והכי מפרש רבינו משולם אטו כי אמרי ידענו – And this is how ר' משולם explains the גמרא which says, “Is it not so that if they said ‘we know’”; the word ‘they’ is referring not to a שליח, but rather to – שנים מעלמא שיקיימו גט זה מי לא מהימני – Two people at large (not the שלוחים) that would be מקיים this גט; would they not be believed?! Certainly, if the שליח did not say בפ"נ at all and two people came and were מקיים the גט, then it would be a valid גט according to ¹⁴רבא – והואיל ומהני בזה קיום דמהני בשאר שטרות אתי לאיחלופי:¹⁵ So since the קיום which is effective by other שטרות is effective by גט, therefore there is the concern of אתי לאיחלופי.

SUMMARY There is a מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות if, according to רבא, a שליח הגט will be believed if he says ידעתי instead of בפני. רש"י is of the opinion that (the reason why it is אתי לאיחלופי is because) a שליח would be believed if he said ידעתי instead of בפני נחתם. The גמרא did not mention this as one of the differences between רבה and רבא, because the גמרא is considering only those differences whether בפ"נ needs to be said or not. תוספות disagrees for it would mean that it is not necessary to say בפ"נ; whereas in the גמרא, we find the requirement to say only בפני, without any allusion that ידעתי is sufficient. This proves that a שליח saying ידעתי will not validate the גט, even according to רבא. The reason for this is that when saying ידעתי the שליח will not be as meticulous as when he testifies בפני. The reason why אתי לאיחלופי is that if two people state ידענו it will be a valid גט. Thus people will equate בפני נחתם with קיום הגט. Subsequently they will conclude that just as by the קיום הגט one שליח is נאמן, so too by קיום שטרות one עד will be נאמן.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What are the relative merits and difficulties of פירושי רש"י ותוספות respectively?
2. Why is קיום הגט different from קיום שטרות, that by קיום הגט one שליח is sufficient and קיום שטרות requires two עדים?
3. תוספות asks: according to רש"י that ידעתי is valid (according to רבא), why did the גמרא not say: 'ידעתי איכא בינייהו'.¹⁶ Why cannot we ask a similar question according to תוספות; why does the גמרא not say ידענו איכא בינייהו?¹⁷

footnotes: ¹ ד"ה אטו הכא. ² In our text, רש"י states: 'אי אמר יודע אני'. Also, רש"י quotes the גמרא as saying: 'אטו הכא כי אמר יודע אני וכו''. ³ It is understood that ידעתי will be valid for קיום הגט (according to the מסקנא), only if it is accompanied by בפני נכתב; otherwise it will be אתי לאיחלופי וכו'. ⁴ See previous footnote #2, that sרש"י' text in the גמרא reads 'יודע אני'. However, תוספות may be adding that רש"י can be understood even according to our reading of the text; אמרי ידענו. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁶ See תוספות ב,ב ד"ה לפי (הא') where תוספות asks that according to רש"י, the גמרא should have said: איכא בינייהו אם צריך לישאל. This seems to contradict what תוספות is saying here, וצ"ע. ⁷ רבא makes his comment concerning the משנה, which states that if the שליח said בפני נכתב כולו, however he saw the signing of only one of the עדים and not the second עד, it is פסול. In the event that the שליח and another person recognize the other חתימה, nevertheless רבא maintains that it is still פסול. ⁸ Obviously, saying בפ"נ concerning one עד is no worse than ידעתי. ⁹ See רש"י ריש דף טו,ב ד"ה הוא ואחר. ¹⁰ If רבא would be of the opinion that one שליח is נאמן if he says ידעתי, he never would have made that statement, that 'אפילו הוא ואחר מעידין על חתימת יד שני פסול'. This would be illogical. ¹¹ It will now be necessary to restate sרבא' statement and sרב אשי' subsequent refutation in פרק שני quoted above. תוספות view is that the שליח alone is not believed to say ידעתי. But רבא adds (to the משנה there) and maintains that even if the שליח and another person are testifying that they recognize the second signature it is still not a valid גט (for the reason given in the גמרא there). רב אשי disagrees with רבא, maintaining that since if the שליח would have said בפני נחתם כולו he would be believed, how can you maintain that the שליח and another person who say ידענו are not sufficient to validate the גט. See תוספות on דף טו,א ד"ה מי. ¹² See previous תוספות ד"ה הכא. ¹³ Now that תוספות concluded that a שליח is not believed if he says ידעתי, there seems to be a difficulty in understanding the גמרא. There is an argument between רבה and רבא if אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא; where רבה maintains that לא אתי לאיחלופי, since by גט the שליח says בפני and by קיום they say ידענו. To which רבא responds that by גט if they say ידענו it will also be valid. Therefore it is אתי לאיחלופי. If we assume sרש"י' opinion that רבא means that every שליח is believed if he says ידעתי, then it is very well understood that אתי לאיחלופי. However according to תוספות that ידעתי is not valid by a שליח, why does רבא maintain that אתי לאיחלופי. How can there be אתי לאיחלופי if the שליח must say only בפני. ¹⁴ רבא is of the opinion that בפ"נ needs to be said to assure קיום. Here there is a valid קיום with these two עדים. According to רבה, however, even though we have a proper קיום הגט, the גט is still פסול, because of the חשש of אין בקיאין לשמה. ¹⁵ Once people see that a גט is valid without saying בפ"נ, as long as there is קיום, they will deduce that the purpose of בפ"נ is קיום הגט. Therefore they will conclude that קיום שטרות can also be accomplished with only one עד (saying בפני נחתם), just as one שליח is believed by קיום הגט (by saying בפני נחתם). ¹⁶ See footnote # 5. ¹⁷ See מהר"ם שי"ף.

כיון דאילו אמרי ידענו כולי—Since if they would have said ‘we recognize’ etc.

OVERVIEW רבה claimed that there is no חשש of אתי לאיחלופי, since קיום הגט is different from קיום שטרות in three ways: a) by גט we say בפני and not ידעתי, b) by גט a woman is believed to say בפ"נ, by שטרות a man is required, and c) by גט the divorcee can testify בפ"נ, by שטרות the litigants cannot testify. רבא responded to the first question only. תוספות will explain why רבא did not respond to the other two questions.

וקושיא דאשה ובעל דבר לא חש לתרץ – And the questions**** concerning ‘a woman’ and ‘a litigant’ which רבה asked in his attempt to refute רבא, he was not concerned about (not) answering them – דלא שכיחי דמייתי גיטא – For it is not frequent that either a woman or the divorcee herself will bring a גט. Therefore these two cases will not be sufficient to distinguish גט אשה from קיום שטרות; people will not be aware of this distinction due to its infrequent occurrence. וכי מייתי עד כשר אתי לאיחלופי: And when a proper עד (a male) will bring the גט (which is the usual and normal occurrence), and it will be accepted as a valid גט, people will confuse¹ גט אשה with קיום שטרות and will presume that by קיום שטרות one עד is sufficient. Therefore the חכמים were מתקן to say בפני נכתב also, to distinguish גט אשה from קיום שטרות.

SUMMARY The fact that אשה and בעל דבר distinguish גט אשה from קיום שטרות in not sufficient to protect us from אתי לאיחלופי, for their occurrence is rare. In order there should be no אתי לאיחלופי the distinction must be frequent and apparent.

THINKING IT OVER List in order of frequency: a) women bringing a גט, b) (male) שלוחים saying בפ"נ, and c) שלוחים saying ידעתי\ידענו.

footnotes: ¹ They will confuse it [even though the שליח says בפני (see previous two תוספות)], since occasionally two שלוחים will testify ידענו and be believed. People will see that a single שליח\עד is as good as the two, and therefore a single עד should be valid also by קיום שטרות.

מאן האי תנא דבעי כתיבה לשמה ובעי חתימה לשמה—Who is this תנא that requires the writing be לשמה and the signing be לשמה

OVERVIEW רבה maintains that the reason for saying בפ"נ ובפ"נ is to assure that the גט was executed לשמה. It stands to reason that there is a requirement that both the כתיבה and חתימה must be rendered לשמה (otherwise why require him to say both בפני נכתב and בפני נחתם). The גמרא asks, ‘who is this תנא that requires both the כתיבה and חתימה to be לשמה’. Our תוספות will challenge this assumption. It is possible that only the כתיבה need be לשמה (the opinion of רבי אלעזר¹), and nevertheless it will still be necessary to say בפ"נ ובפני נחתם.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למאי דמסקינן דרבה אית ליה דרבא נוקי מתניתין כרבי אלעזר – And if you will say; according to the conclusion of the גמרא² that רבה agrees with רבא, that we need to say בפ"נ to assure קיום הגט also, besides the חשש of אין בקיאין לשמה³ let us establish our משנה according to ר' אלעזר, who requires that only the כתיבה need be לשמה and not the חתימה – והוי בפני נכתב משום לשמה ובפני נחתם משום שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו – And the reason for saying בפני נכתב will be on account of לשמה, for we are following the ruling of ר"א who requires כתיבה לשמה, and it is also required to say בפני נחתם since there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו. According to the מסקנא that רבה maintains both reasons; there is no need to find a תנא who is of the opinion that both כתיבה וחתימה have to be לשמה. We can follow the opinion of ר"א who requires כתיבה לשמה. This will explain the reason for saying בפני נכתב and since רבה also agrees that אין עדים מצויין לקיימו that will explain why בפני נחתם must also be said. תוספות anticipates a possible answer and refutes it: ודוחק לומר דכולה הך סוגיא וגם רב אשי דאמר לקמן רבי יהודה היא – And it is implausible that this entire discussion in which we are searching for a תנא who requires כתיבה וחתימה לשמה and also⁴ רב אשי who states later in the גמרא that our משנה follows the opinion of ר' יהודה who maintains that both כתיבה וחתימה have to be done לשמה; it is implausible that in all this – איירי למאי דסלקא דעתן מעיקרא – We are discussing only according to what we originally thought, namely that רבה does not agree with רבא at all, therefore we must find a תנא who requires both כתיבה וחתימה לשמה. In truth however, we can say that according to רבה the תנא of the משנה is ר' אלעזר, as previously mentioned. תוספות finds this too far fetched⁵ to say that the entire סוגיא is only according to the הוה אמינא⁶. We must say therefore that even according to the מסקנא, we cannot use תוספות solution. The question is why not? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרבה אף לפי המסקנא בעי חתימה לשמה – And one can say; that even according to the מסקנא of the גמרא where רבה agrees with the reason of אין עדים מצויין לקיימו, nevertheless we need to say that רבה requires that the חתימה be לשמה. Therefore we are seeking the תנא who requires both כתיבה וחתימה לשמה even according to the מסקנא that רבה אית ליה דרבא. תוספות will now explain why we must maintain that רבה requires חתימה לשמה. כיון דידענו לא מהני – Since according to רבה (even) two עדים that state ידענו (besides saying בפני נכתב) will not validate⁷ the גט. The only explanation why ידענו is not sufficient is because we require that the חתימה be לשמה. The עדים cannot testify that the חתימה was לשמה, unless they were present by the חתימה, and saw the עדי הגט signing לשמה. If רבה would not maintain that the חתימה needs to be לשמה, then if two עדים state ידענו, ‘we recognize the חתימות’, then it would certainly be כשר. תוספות will now explain why רבה maintains ידענו לא מהני even according to the מסקנא: דאי מהני לפי המסקנא תקשי רבה מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבא – For if we will maintain that according to the מסקנא (when רבה agrees with רבא), ידענו is acceptable⁸ the original question will remain; why does not רבה totally agree⁹ with רבא, that the חיוב of saying בפ"נ is only because of קיום and not because of לשמה. Therefore we must conclude (since רבה argues with רבא), that ידענו לא מהני. The reason why ידענו לא מהני, is that since we require חתימה לשמה, then ידענו will be hearsay. תוספות anticipates a possible refutation and rejects it. וליכא למימר הא דלא מהני ידענו היינו משום איחלופי¹⁰ – And we cannot say that רבה does not require חתימה לשמה¹¹, and the reason why ידענו is not acceptable¹² because if ידענו would be acceptable then אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות. The proposed refutation is as follows; there is no requirement for חתימה לשמה. Nonetheless ¹³ידענו לא מהני; for if ידענו מהני people will say this single שליח\עד is equivalent to the two עדים that say ידענו. Therefore it follows that wherever two עדים are believed (i.e. קיום שטרות), a single עד should also be believed¹⁴. תוספות rejects this refutation; we cannot say that ידענו לא מהני, simply because of אתי לאיחלופי – דהא כיון שצריך לומר בפני נכתב משום לשמה לא אתי לאיחלופי: For since the שליח is required to say בפני נכתב on account¹⁵ of לשמה this will prevent any confusion. Therefore since there is no concern of confusion, the only explanation why ידענו לא מהני is because רבה requires חתימה לשמה.

SUMMARY We must say that רבה is of the opinion that the חתימה (also) must be לשמה, even according to the מסקנא of the גמרא that רבה אית ליה דרבא. The reason why רבה does not totally agree with רבא, but rather maintains that בפני נכתב must be said on account of לשמה and not on account of אתי לאיחלופי, is because רבה maintains that לא אתי לאיחלופי since ידענו לא מהני. The (only) reason why ידענו לא מהני is because they have to testify that it was written לשמה, and this can be accomplished only be saying בפני. We cannot say that חתימה לשמה is not required, and the reason why ידענו לא מהני is because if ידענו מהני, then אתי לאיחלופי. This is not so, for according to רבה, the שליח must say בפני נכתב for לשמה. This saying of בפני נכתב will prevent איחלופי. This proves that רבה requires חתימה לשמה. Therefore we cannot say that he follows the opinion of ר"א who requires only כתיבה לשמה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Previously¹⁶ תוספות explained that רבא derives that ידענו is not effective from the משנה in ריש פ"ב. Here תוספות states that רבה maintains ידענו לא מהני for otherwise why does רבה argue with רבא. Can we reconcile these two תוספות?¹⁷
2. What is more frequent;¹⁸ a. שליח המביא גט; b. שנים המכירים החתימות; or c. אשה המביאה גט and האשה עצמה שהביא גיטה?¹⁹
3. Why does תוספות add the phrase 'משום לשמה'²⁰ when mentioning that בפני נכתב needs to be said?

footnotes: ¹ See גמרא ג,ב. ² דף ד,ב. ³ According to the מסקנא, the opinion of רבה is that בפ"נ ובפ"נ has to be said for both reasons; אין בקיאין לשמה and אין עדים מצויין לקיימו. According to רבא however there is only one reason for saying בפ"נ; namely אין עדים מצויין לקיימו. ⁴ See footnote # 6. ⁵ When the גמרא discusses an issue at length, we assume that it is according to the מסקנא, unless specifically stated otherwise. ⁶ It is especially difficult to say that רב אשי, who was from the last אמוראים and was מסדר the גמרא, did not know of the מסקנא that רבה אית ליה דרבא and finds it necessary to actually establish our משנה only according to ר' יהודה. ⁷ See תוס' ד"ה הכא that רבה derives the דין that ידענו לא מהני from the משנה ריש פ"ב. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ In the הו"א when רבה maintains that we say בפ"נ only because of לשמה, then obviously ידענו is not valid, because it does not tell us whether the עדים signed לשמה. According to the מסקנא, however, where רבה agrees with the reason of אין עדים וכו', perhaps he will also agree that ידענו is acceptable, because we do not need חתימה לשמה, we say בפני נחתם, only to be מקיים the גט. ⁹ רבה did not agree with רבא because according to רבא it is not necessary to say בפני נכתב. And רבה does not accept sרבא' answer that בפני נכתב is said because אתי לאיחלופי, for רבה is of the opinion that לא אתי לאיחלופי since by קיום we can only say בפני. Even if two עדים come and say ידענו it will not be accepted. If according to the מסקנא, however, רבה will also agree that ידענו is acceptable, then it will be אתי לאיחלופי, so רבה has no reason not to accept sרבא' opinion. [The distinction of אשה ובעל דבר alone will not be sufficient to prevent the אתי לאיחלופי; see תוספות ד"ה כיון (מהר"ם שי"ף).] ¹⁰ It would be appropriate (according to this refutation) that the חכמים disqualify ידענו by שנים (who should be believed) in favor of accepting בפנ"ח by one שליח, because one שליח is more common than two who recognize the חתימות from מדה"י (see מהר"ם שי"ף). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹¹ Therefore תוספות original question should remain that we follow ר"א concerning בפני נכתב on account of לשמה; and בפני נחתם is said only for קיום. ¹² If there is no requirement for חתימה לשמה, there seems to be no reason why ידענו לא מהני. ¹³ This will also explain why רבה disagrees with רבא. Since ידענו לא מהני there is no need for בפני נכתב, since לא אתי לאיחלופי because ידענו לא מהני. ¹⁴ See footnote # 9 in תוספות ד"ה הכא. ¹⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁶ בד"ה הכא. See footnote # 7. ¹⁷ See נח"מ. ¹⁸ See footnote # 10. ¹⁹ See מהר"ם שי"ף. ²⁰ See footnote # 15.