Based on the statement "Im Yesh Alav Eidim", the gemara is able to clearly discern that the Mishnah must be following the approach of R. Eliezer - who holds Eidei Mesirah Karsei - and therefore the witnesses on the get are not necessary on a de'orayta level. This would therefore allow the '??' variable to make sense for it's very possible that - following R. Eliezer's opinion - there wouldn't in fact be witnesses on this particular get. So, the Mishnah states, in a case where in fact the get DOESN'T have witnesses (which is totally acceptable according to R. Eliezer) and the messenger is unable to make the relevant statement, then the get is null and void. Here is my quandary: In the same statement, it says that if the messenger is unable to say 'I saw it written and I SAW IT SIGNED' it then says that 'IF there were witnesses on the get, then establish its authenticity through them'. Which seems to imply (to me) that the SAME Mishnah is stating that there was a get for which the messenger COULD have stated 'I saw it signed' (but for some reason was unable - bumped his head on the journey, for example) and yet this same get possibly/acceptably DID NOT HAVE WITNESSES ON IT! Wouldn't the messenger's statement (if he COULD have stated it) therefore have been FALSE?!
Jonathan Bailey, Jerusalem, Israel
The get was written by the scribe, signed by the husband, and no witnesses signed on it.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you for your response.
However, perhaps I've misunderstood your answer or you misunderstood my question.
I wasn't asking how an unsigned get comes about, but rather how a messenger could have declared "b'Fanai Nechtav uv'Fanai Nechtam" on a get that didn't have any signatures on it!
I hope I have made myself clearer.
thank you.
It is not a Get with no signatures. The husband or the Sofer signed on the Get.
Nonetheless, I found that the Mesivta edition cites a number of Mefarshim who ask your question. One of those Mefarshim is Rav Eliyahu Gutmacher zt'l, a Talmid of Rebbi Akiva Eiger and a colleague of Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher zt'l. His Chidushim are printed at the back of the Mishnayos (in the older editions, his comments on your question are on page 22 at the end of Maseches Gitin, after "Avi Ezri").
1) I should first point out that that the Gemara does not say that the Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer. However, this explanation is given by the Tosfos Yom Tov (and also the Meleches Shlomo). Rav Gutmacher (in the name of his son) directs his question on the Tosfos Yom Tov: If there is a possibility that there are no witnesses on the Get, then the Shali'ach cannot say, "It was signed in front of me," since there are no witnesses who could have signed!
2) Rav Gutmacher answers that the witnesses referred to in the Mishnah are not witnesses who signed on the Get. For such witnesses, it is not appropriate to say, "If there are Edim on the Get," because Rebbi Eliezer also agrees that mid'Rabanan Edim are always required to sign, as the Mishnah on 86a states. Instead, the witnesses referred to by the Mishnah on 9a are "Edei Kiyum" -- witnesses who confirm that the signatures of the witnesses signed on the Get are authentic.
3) Rav Gutmacher writes that according to this explanation, we also can answer another question. There seems to be a contradiction between the Mishnah on 2a and the Mishnah on 9a. Why does the Mishnah at the end of 2a state that "if there are challengers, the signatures should be confirmed"? Why does it not say on 2a "if there are witnesses" as it says on 9a? The answer is that the difference between 2a and 9a is that the end of the Mishnah on 2a refers to a Get brought in Eretz Yisrael, while 9a refers to a Get brought from Chutz la'Aretz. In Eretz Yisrael, it is easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures. In Chutz la'Aretz, it is not easy to find such Edim (see above, beginning of 2b). Therefore, on 2a it was not necesary to say "if there are witnesses" because in Eretz Yisrael there will always be witnesses to confirm the signatures. It is only on 9a that it is necessary to say "if there are witnesses," since in Chutz la'Aretz one cannot always find Edei Kiyum.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1) I answered that a way of finding a Get which was signed, but on which there are no witnesses, is if the husband signed but there are no witnesses on the Get.
2) In the week of Purim I found a good source for this, bs'd. The Rashba (Gitin 15a) asks that there is a way that Mordechai could have divorced Esther without any danger that Achashverosh would know about it. The Rashba writes that Mordechai could have written a Get in his own handwriting (with no witnesses on it to avoid publicity). The Rashba writes that such a Get is valid mid'Oraisa. He adds that it would have been a good idea for Mordechai to write her such a Get, because after Esther went willingly to the king, this meant that she agreed to having relations with the king even though she was in fact still married to Mordechai. This represents one of the thee Aveiros of Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor, sins for which one must give up his life in order to avoid. If Mordechai would have written her a Get, she would not have transgressed the severe prohibition of Arayos and would not have rendered herself forbidden to Mordechai as a result of her willing relations with Achashverus.
3) The Rashba answers that this question is based on "words of Agadah" and one need not answer such questions. However, one does learn from the Rashba that if the husband himself writes a Get to his wife in his own handwriting, this makes an effective Get according to Torah Law.
4) This in fact is stated explicitly by the Mishnah in Gitin 86a, which tells us that there are three types of Get which are Pasul, but if the wife remarries based on such a Get, a baby born from the second marriage would be of pure lineage. One of those is a Get written in the husband's handwriting but with no witnesses signed on it. See also Ran there (46a of the pages of the Rif, DH u'Miha, in the answer which starts "v'Yesh Lidchos"), who writes that since the husband needs to write his own name in the Get, this is equivalent to him signing it. It follows that we have now found an example of a Get which was signed without any witnesses.
5) This, then, is what the Mishnah on 9a means when it implies that there is a Get which the Shali'ach says he saw being signed, but even so it is possible that there are no witnesses on the Get. Even though this Get is not valid l'Chatchilah since the Mishnah says it is Pasul, nevertheless it might be important for the Shali'ach to tell us that it was signed, because b'Di'eved if this Get was used, we could prove through the testimony of the witness that the child from the second marriage is not a Mamzer.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you so much for your continued response; I really appreciate the time you have taken on this.
So, according to this approach, the messenger could technically say I saw it signed' and it would be referring to the husband's signature - which while is a pasul get, nonetheless is significant if it comes to a second-marriage/mamzer issue. Is this correct?
This answer actually resonates with me more than the previous one (of Rav Gutmacher) because it was difficult to accept. It seemed to me that the translation of "Yiskayem b'Chosmav" according to his approach was "you establish the witness' authenticity with the signatures of the eidei kiyum" but the pashut translation seems to me to be "you establish the get's authenticity through the get's signatures"...
Thank you,
shavua tov,
Jonathan Bailey
1) Yes, the get is only pasul lecatchilah but if it was used, the children of a second marriage are kasher so it could be extremely significant that the witness says he saw the husband sign.
2) Rav Gutmacher argues that his explanation fits in better with the first part of the Mishnah, which states "if there are protesters on it". This clearly does not mean that the protesters are signed on the Get, but rather that the Get has protesters against it. In a parallel way, the end of the Mishnah, which states "if there are witnesses on it", does not mean that the witnesses are signed on the get, but rather that the witnesses are in favor of the Get, because they are able to confirm the signatures on the Get.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom