Gittin

if the bearer and another person confirm the signature of the second witness,  [the Get] is invalid,  because this might be taken as a precedent for the attestation of other documents, and in this way three-quarters  of a sum in dispute might be assigned on the word of one witness.  R. Ashi strongly demurred to this [reasoning]. Is there anything. he said, which if stated by one persons is valid, but becomes invalid if another joins with him? No, said R. Ashi, what we have to say is that even if the bearer Says. 'I myself am the second witness', [the Get] is invalid, because in regard to both signatures alike we must either insist on confirmation or follow the regulation of the Rabbis. We learnt: [IF HE DECLARES.] 'THE WHOLE WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE BUT ONLY ONE WITNESS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', THE GET IS INVALID. What now about the other witness? Do we presume that there is no-one who attests his signature? That cannot be; for even where one [person declares] IT WAS WRITTEN IN MY PRESENCE' AND ANOTHER SAYS 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', in which case one testifies to the whole of the writing and the other to the whole of the signing [ — even in that case the Get] is invalid; how much more so then if only half [of the signing is attested]? No; this shows that the proper explanation is either that of Raba or of R. Ashi, and that R. Hisda's is to be excluded.  And R. Hisda? — He can rejoin: On your theory,  what need is there to specify the case of 'in my presence it was written but not signed' [etc.]? Obviously the Mishnah was giving first a weaker and then a stronger instance;  so here, the Mishnah gives first a weaker and then a stronger instance. R. Hisda said: An embankment five handbreadths deep and a fence [on it] five handbreadths high are not reckoned together [to form a single partition of ten handbreadths];  the whole of the ten must be contained either in the embankment or in the fence. Meremar, however, in an exposition, [taught] that an embankment of five handbreadths and a fence on it of five handbreadths are reckoned together; and the law is that they are reckoned together. Ilfa inquired: Can the hands be half clean and half unclean, or can they not be? How is this question to be understood? Does it mean that two persons wash their hands from a revi'ith?  Regarding this we have already learnt that a revi'ith is sufficient for washing the hands of one [person] and even of two.  Is the case then that he washes one hand at a time? In regard to this too we have learnt  that if a man washes one hand by pouring water over it and the other by dipping [it in a river] the hands are clean. Is it then that he washes a half of his hand at a time? Regarding this it has been laid down in the school of R. Jannai that the hands cannot be made clean by halves. — The question may still be asked in regard to the case where the water is still dripping [from one hand  when he washes the second]. And suppose the water is dripping, what does it matter? Have we not learnt: