We begin our study of the second chapter of Maseches Gittin, Mishnah 1. The Mishnah continues with the subject of the agent who brings a get from overseas, and it comes to clarify the ruling when his testimony - "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed" - is incomplete.
The words of the Mishnah:
"HaMevi get mimedinas hayam v'amar: befanai nichtav aval lo befanai nechtam; befanai nechtam aval lo befanai nichtav; befanai nichtav kulo u'befanai nechtam chetzyo; befanai nichtav chetzyo u'befanai nechtam kulo - pasul" - one who brings a get from overseas and says: in my presence it was written but not in my presence was it signed; in my presence it was signed but not in my presence was it written; in my presence all of it was written and in my presence half of it was signed; in my presence half of it was written and in my presence all of it was signed - it is invalid.
Four cases are listed here, and all of them are invalid:
"Befanai nichtav aval lo befanai nechtam" - the agent testifies only about the writing, whereas he must state both things together.
"Befanai nechtam aval lo befanai nichtav" - the agent testifies about the signing, but he is unable to testify that the get was written in his presence.
"Befanai nichtav kulo u'befanai nechtam chetzyo" - the entire get was written in his presence, but of the two witnesses who signed, only one signed in his presence. This is like someone who says that the get was not signed in his presence.
"Befanai nichtav chetzyo u'befanai nechtam kulo" - the entire signing was done in his presence, but only half of the writing.
In all of these cases the testimony is required to be complete: both "in my presence it was written" and "in my presence it was signed," and each in its entirety.
"In my presence half of it was written" - which half is meant:
The Gemara clarifies that the invalidation applies specifically to the "second half" of the get, which is the part containing the particulars: the husband's name, the wife's name, and the date of the get. These details must be written in his presence. The rest of the get, however - the tofes, that is, the standard text - need not be written in his presence, and it is valid even without that.
Two agents whose testimony is divided:
The Mishnah continues: "Echad omer befanai nichtav v'echad omer befanai nechtam - pasul" - one says in my presence it was written and one says in my presence it was signed - it is invalid. A single agent suffices and two are not required, but that same one person must state both things, rather than one saying this and the other saying that.
The Gemara establishes the case as one where the get was not brought by the two of them together, since two people who bring a get need not say "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed" at all - they themselves can confirm and authenticate the signatures if the need arises. The case, then, is where only one of the two who carried the get was the actual agent, and each of them testified about one part only, and therefore the get is invalid.
Two say in our presence it was written and one says in my presence it was signed:
A further case in the Mishnah: two agents testify that the get was written in their presence, and an additional person testifies that it was signed in his presence. Rashi emphasizes that this refers to a third party and not to one of the two - for had it been one of them, we would have one person testifying both about the writing and about the signing, and the get would be valid for that reason alone.
The reason for the invalidation: even though there is someone here who testifies "in my presence it was signed," we are concerned that people will come to confuse this ruling with that of other documents. For authenticating signatures with a single witness was permitted only for gittin, and from this case people might mistakenly conclude that with other documents too one may authenticate signatures with a single witness. Therefore we allow one person to authenticate the signature only when he himself also authenticates that the writing was done lishmah, and in this way the distinction between gittin and other documents is preserved. In our case it is not the same person who says "in my presence it was written," but rather two other people, and therefore it is invalid.
Rav Yehudah, however, rules that it is valid. In his view, the very fact that there are two witnesses here - and not a single witness - testifying about the writing of the get prevents any confusion with the ordinary authentication of documents, and serves as a reminder that the law of gittin is unique.
One says in my presence it was written and two say in our presence it was signed:
The final case in the Mishnah: one person testifies that the get was written in his presence, and two testify that it was signed in their presence. This is valid according to all opinions, since there is no concern that it will be confused with other documents - on the contrary, it is even permitted to liken it to them, for other documents too are valid when the signatures are authenticated by two witnesses. And along with that, we have one person testifying that the get was written lishmah.
In summary: The Mishnah teaches that the agent's testimony must be complete in both of its parts - "in my presence it was written" and "in my presence it was signed" - and from the mouth of one person. The Gemara clarified that "half of it was written" refers to the part containing the particulars (the names and the date), while the tofes is not essential. When the testimony about the writing and about the signing is divided between two people, it is invalid, out of concern for confusion with the authentication of other documents; Rav Yehudah rules it valid when two testify about the writing, and when the signing is authenticated by two witnesses it is valid according to all opinions.