Ketubot

and that Samuel follows the view of R. Eleazar who holds that the witnesses to the delivery [Of a Get] make it effective?  — No, all  follow the view of R. Eleazar,  but it is the following Principle on which they differ here. Rab is of the opinion that a division [between the claimants] is preferable and Samuel holds that [leaving the decision to] the discretion Of the judges is prefer. able. But can you maintain that Rab follows the view Of R. Eleazar? Surely, Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar in matters Of divorce' [and he added.] 'When I mentioned this in Samuel's presence he said: "Also in the case of other deeds". Does not this then imply that Rab is of the opinion that in the case Of deeds [the halachah is] not [in agreement with R. Eleazar]?' Clearly. Rab follows the view Of R. Meir and Samuel that of R. Eleazar. An objection was raised: 'If two deeds  bearing the same date [are produced in court, the property In question] is to be divided. Is not this an objection against Samuel?  — Samuel can answer you: This represents the view of  R. Meir but I follow the view of R. Eleazar. But if this  represents the view of R. Meir, read the final clause: 'If he  wrote [a deed] for one man  [and then he wrote a deed for,] and delivered it to another man, the one to whom he delivered [the deed] acquires legal possession'. Now if [this  represents the view of] R. Meir why does he acquire possession? Did he not, in fact, lay down that the signatures of the witnesses  make [a Get] effective?  — This  [is a question which is also in dispute between] Tannaim.  For it was taught: And the Sages say [that the money]  must  be divided,  while here  it was ruled that the trustee  shall use his own discretion. The mother of Rami b. Hama  gave her property in writing to Rami b. Hama in the morning, but in the evening she gave it in writing to Mar 'Ukba b. Hama.  Rami b. Hama came before R. Shesheth who confirmed him in the possession of the property. Mar 'Ukba then appeared before R. Nahman who Similarly confirmed him in the possession of the property. R. Shesheth, thereupon, came to R. Nahman and said to him, 'What is the reason that the Master has acted in this way?' 'And what is the reason', the other retorted, 'that the Master has acted in that way?' 'Because', the former replied, '[Rami's deed was written] first',  'Are we then', the other retorted, 'living in Jerusalem where the hours are inserted [in deeds]?'  'Then why [the former asked] did the Master act in this way?'  '[I treated it,] the other retorted, [as a case to be decided] at the discretion of the judges'.  'I too'' the first said, '[treated the case as one to be decided at] the discretion of the judges',  'In the first place' the other retorted, 'I am a judge  and the Master is no judge, and furthermore, you did not at first come with this argument', Two deeds [of sale]  were once presented before R. Joseph, one being dated,  'On the fifth of Nisan',  and the other was vaguely dated, 'In Nisan'. R. Joseph confirmed the [holder of the deed which had the entry,] 'fifth of Nisan' in the possession of the property. 'And I', said the other, 'must lose?' 'You', he replied, 'are at a disadvantage, since it may be suggested that your deed was one that was written  on the twenty-ninth of Nisan'  'Will, then, the Master', the other asked, 'write for me