- This topic has 18 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Suppose two men (Berel and Shmerel) show up at a woman’s door to deliver a get to her. Both of them are holding onto the get itself. Beryl says “???? ???? ????? ????.” Shmerel then says “???? ???? ????? ????.” Then, Berel says, “Shmerel is lying. He wasn’t there. I am the true shaliach.” Shmerel answers, “No, Berel is lying. He wasn’t there. I am the true shaliach.”
What would happen in such a case? Would we rely on the fact that we need only one shaliach, and say that since one of them is, in fact, claiming to be the shaliach, the shlichut is OK? Or would we say the shlichut is no good, because we don’t know which one was designated as the true shaliach?
Consult Hilchos Eidim Zomemmim, a Parsha which appears in Parshas Shoftim and in Tractate Makos.
You will get more satisfaction from applying Hilchos Eidim Zomemim than from from this coffee room.
Theoretical question from Gittin? Oh, the Chovos Halevavos speaks about it in his introduction.
Wherever one is believed he becomes like two. Therefore, one is not believed to counter him. We probably believed the first one and not the second.
147,
This case has nothing to do with ???? ??????.
aren’t both of them saying the get is a good get
It’s a good Get Mimah Nafashach. One of those two is Kosher and there is only one being Soseir him. One person can’t be Soseir a B’fanai Nechtav.
The sufficiency of the nemanus of a shliach saying befanai nechtav comes from the concepts of “mishum iguna” and “meidak dayak,” of which the latter would either supersede or prevent the husband from contradicting the shliach (if my memory from many years ago serves correctly). According to those that say that should the husband contradict the shliach he would win, one could question whether that would apply to someone else as well. I think it’s popular “reid” but who knows.
Its a moshol!
All of the politicians in eretz yisroel are holding onto a get to divorce us chas v’sholom from the torah, and each one says he is the one who brought it from medinas hayam.
sam2, perhaps neither can be considered a shliach, one needs to be holding the get to be believed as a shliach, and both of their strongholds are questionable and incomplete, perhaps similar to shnayim adukin bshtar. So, actually, neither are bchezkas shliach, to assume that their bfan”n is that of a shliach. One needs to be a shliach to have that neemanus. Kein nireh.
I think it is a good get because each are b’chezkas eid kasher, therefore, regardless of their being a shliach they are believed as two eidim (unless of course they are krovim or nashim). I don’t think the sugya of shtei kitei eidim is applicable.
haleivi, your first post was very cute, your second needs some work.
poppa, zeiur gut gezokt, teire yingele
takah,
however we want eidos on the get and both are saying its a good get
like the case of one person saying reuvain owes 200 and the other one saying he owes 500, both are agreeing that he owes at least 200 even though theyre saying the other one is lying
CA- one can differentiate your case by pointing out that the two testimonies aren’t inherently contradictory (bichlal masayim maneh, and there could be two seperate chovos).
fny,
exactly, since bichlal maasayim maneh theyre both saying he owes something so too over here they’re both being meid that it’s a good get
You can say Bichlal Masayim Maneh if the Get was a Shtar Chov, not by a Get, which has to function independently of what it proves.
sam2,
what im saying is both are saying the get is a good get, how is this different if they both come in saying we know this person is divorced and each of them arguing who was there, except that an eid echad is believed for bfanei nechtav
I only learned Gittin briefly. however, i’m pretty sure that if there are 2 slichim, they don’t have to say befanai nictav at all. The Reason for the statement to begin with is that there is one shaliach. Therefore, as someone said above, we apply “meidak diak” and “ikiloo bah rbanan mishum aguna” and finally the statement of befanai nectav and vioala… one shaliach is believed like 2 would be. however, if you have 2 people delivering, i believe the statement is irrelevant anyways. unless you wanna argue that the statement is actually megaraayiah their testimony. that’s possible. what they would do in such a case is just ask the shlichim to say hikarti (i recognize the signature) and that would make the get kayam. (all of the above is according to rava (with an aleph) and may not be true for Rabba. Rabba holds they would have to say befanai i think) (Rabba learns the mishnah that they have to say befanai when they are 2 shlichim “davka”. rava says lav davka )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.