Gittin

to my daughter, it is worth twelve maneh; and then she died and the Sages carried out her instruction? He replied: The sons of Rokel — may their mother bury them!  The first Tanna [in our passage] holds with R. Eleazar,  and R. Nathan and R. Jacob also hold with R. Eleazar, [so much so] that although the owner dies, we do not say that it is a religious duty to carry out his wishes. 'Some' [authorities] hold with the Rabbis. R. Judah speaking in the name of R. Jacob who himself spoke in the name of R. Meir held with R. Eleazar, only where the sender had died in the meanwhile he applied the principle of carrying out the wishes of the deceased. The Sages said the money should be divided, because they were in doubt. 'Here' [in Babylon] they said that the bearer could best estimate for himself, while R. Simeon the Prince merely desired to give an illustration. A question was asked in the Beth Hamidrash: Was R. Simeon the Prince really a prince,  or did he speak in the name of the Prince? — Come and hear: R. Joseph said that the halachah follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But the question still remains whether he was a Prince or only spoke in the name of a Prince? — Let it stand over. The text above says: R. Jose said that the halachah follows the ruling of R. Simeon the Prince. But is it not an established rule that the words of a man on his death bed have the same force as if they were written and delivered? [R. Joseph] understands [the Baraitha] to be speaking of the case [where the sender was] in good health. But R. Simeon said it should be returned 'to the heirs of the sender'. though all are agreed it is a fixed rule that it is a religious duty to carry out the instructions of the deceased? — Read: 'returned to the sender'. MISHNAH. IF THE BEARER OF A GET FROM 'FOREIGN PARTS' DECLARES: 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', [OR]. 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE BUT NOT WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE', [OR] 'THE WHOLE OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE OF THE WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE',  [OR] 'ONLY HALF WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES  SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE' — IN ALL THESE CASES THE GET IS INVALID.  IF ONE [PERSON] DECLARES 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. THE GET IS INVALID. IF TWO [PERSONS] DECLARE, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. IF ONE DECLARES, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND TWO SAY, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN OUR PRESENCE', IT IS VALID. GEMARA. Why this repetition? Is it not all included in what we have already learnt: The bearer of a Get from 'foreign parts' is required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'?  — If I had only that to go by, I might think that [though] he is required [to make this declaration], yet if he omitted [to do so the Get is still] valid. Now I know that [this is not the case]. ONLY HALF OF IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE THOUGH BOTH WITNESSES SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. Which half is referred to? If you say the first half, what of the dictum of R. Eleazar, that if only one line  is written with special reference to the woman for whom it is intended, the rest requires no such ['special intention']? — R. Ashi therefore said that the second half is meant. THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE. R. Hisda said: Even if two other persons attest the signature of the second witness, the Get is still invalid. What is the reason for this? — In regard to both signatures alike  we must either insist on confirmation  or follow the regulation of the Rabbis.  Raba demurred strongly to this [reasoning]. Is there anything, he said, which is declared valid on the word of one witness  and invalid on the word of two? No, said Raba; what we must say is that even