Bava Basra - Daf 165

• If one requests a גט פשוט and the scribe writes a גט מקושר

In the Mishnah on Daf 160a, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said we follow the מנהג המדינה regarding writing a גט מקושר or גט פשוט. Since the Tanna Kamma also agrees that we follow מנהג המדינה, Rav Ashi explains: in a location where they write a גט פשוט, and he asked the scribe to write one, but he wrote a גט מקושר, all agree it is invalid. The same applies in the reverse case, where the local custom is to write a גט מקושר, and he requested one, but the scribe wrote a גט פשוט. Their argument is where both types of שטרות are written, and he told the scribe to write a גט פשוט, but he wrote a גט מקושר. The Tanna Kamma holds: קפידא – the person was particular that it should be פשוט, and the שטר is invalid, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: מראה מקום הוא לו – he was merely showing [the scribe] the way he can write it (i.e., the simpler option), but would certainly be satisfied if the scribe would trouble himself to write the more complicated גט מקושר. Abaye names two more Tannaim who hold "מראה מקום הוא לו".

• Combining עד אחד בכתב ועד אחד בפה

The Mishnah on Daf 160a states that a גט פשוט with only one עד signed, or a גט מקושר with two עדים, is invalid. The Gemara asks that the first ruling is obvious, and Abaye says it teaches that evenעד אחד בכתב ועד אחד בפה – one witness in writing in a שטר and one witness who testifies the same verbally is still invalid. The Rashbam explains that although their testimony is combined to prove there was a loan, it is not a valid שטר, so the borrower can claim he paid without retrieving the שטר, and the lender cannot collect from sold property. Ameimar rules a document valid with a single עד signed and another עד testifying verbally, and he explains that the Mishnah’s purpose was to teach that a גט מקושר with only two עדים is Biblically invalid, like a גט פשוט with a single עד. Ameimar says that Rebbe Yirmiyah was asked about combining עד אחד בכתב ועד אחד בפה, and they clarified that the question is only according to Rebbe Yehoshua ben Korchah, who holds that two witnesses testifying about different events can be combined to establish a common fact. Rebbe Yirmiyah responded he was unworthy to answer but leans towards saying they can be combined.

• Combining testimonies given in different בתי דין

Rav Ashi told Ameimar he had a different version of the inquiry posed to Rebbe Yirmiyah: if two עדים testified, each in a different Beis Din, מהו שיבואו בית דין אצל בית דין ויצטרפו – what is the halachah regarding whether one Beis Din can come to the other Beis Din and combine to rule based on the joint testimony? This question is only relevant according to Rebbe Nassan, who holds that testimony of עדים who testified separately can be combined. Can their testimony even be combined from different בתי דין? To this, Rebbe Yirmiyah answered that he leans towards saying they can be combined.

Mar bar Chiya had a third version of the inquiry: if two עדים testified in one Beis Din, then again in two more בתי דין, מהו שיבוא אחד מכל ב"ד ויצטרפו – what is the halachah regarding whether one judge from each Beis Din can come and combine to form a new Beis Din, and rule based on the testimony? Again, the inquiry is only relevant according to Rebbe Nassan, and again, Rebbe Yirmiyah leaned towards allowing the combination.