QUESTIONS: The Gemara earlier (15b) asks what the Halachah is in a case in which one washed part of his hand, and while it was still wet he washed the other part to complete the Netilah. Do the waters from each washing combine on the hand to make one Netilah or not? The Gemara proves that the two waters on the hand should not combine from the Mishnah in Taharos (8:9) which states that "Nitzok Katafras and Mashkeh Tofe'ach do not join."

However, that Mishnah does not answer the Gemara's question with regard to water which is "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach." The Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that such waters are considered to join together. The Gemara refutes this proof by saying that the Beraisa refers specifically to Mikva'os and follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah rules that when one immerses in a Mikvah which contains exactly 40 Se'ah of water (the minimum amount) and stands up to exit the Mikvah, and another person immerses there while the first person's foot has not yet left the Mikvah, all of the water on the first person is considered as though it has flowed back into the Mikvah. Accordingly, the minimum amount of water remains in the Mikvah for the second person who immerses.

The Gemara means that although Rebbi Yehudah maintains that water which is "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" joins with other water, his opinion does not prove that the water joins in the case of Netilas Yadayim.

(a) What is the Gemara's refutation of its proof from the Beraisa? Even though the Beraisa follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, the Gemara should prove from his view that water which is "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" joins for Netilas Yadayim just as it joins for a Mikvah.

(b) Moreover, Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is difficult to understand. As TOSFOS writes, Rebbi Yehudah presumably does not disagree with the Mishnah in Taharos which states that Katafras, water flowing on an incline, does not serve to "attach" the upper and lower waters. Why does he state that the water on the first person is considered attached to the Mikvah, if the water on his body is also on an incline?

(a) Two approaches are suggested by the Rishonim to explain the first question.

1. RASHI explains that although "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" causes waters to attach, the waters used for Netilas Yadayim require a stronger connection that the one created by "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach." The Netilah must done on the entire hand at one time, but in the case of the Gemara the first Netilah is no longer present. Although the waters may be considered attached, the acts of Netilah are not.

According to Rashi, what does the Gemara mean when it says "Dilma l'Inyan Mikva'os" -- perhaps "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" applies only to a Mikvah? The Gemara always knew that the Beraisa of "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" refers to Mikva'os and nevertheless it assumed that if "Tofe'ach" joins the waters for a Mikvah it also should join the waters for Netilas Yadayim. Now that the Gemara questions the proof from the Beraisa it should say, "Dilma Rak l'Inyan Mikva'os" perhaps it works only for Mikva'os and not for Netilah.

2. TOSFOS quotes the RI who understands the Gemara differently. According to the Ri, the Mishnah of "Nitzok" refers not to the attachment of Mikva'os, but rather to Hashakah. The principle of Hashakah states that when impure water is attached to the water of a Mikvah, the impure water becomes Tahor. The Mishnah teaches that Nitzok does not work to make an attachment of Hashakah, but the Gemara's Havah Amina understands that "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" does work. The Gemara assumes that since it works for Hashakah, it also works for Netilah. The Gemara never assumed that the attachment of Mikva'os proves anything about Netilah. (The difference between Mikva'os and Netilah may be that for Mikva'os, the attachment is necessary only to make the minimum Shi'ur of a Mikvah, for which Nitzok suffices. In contrast, for Hashakah and Netilah, the impure water (in the case of Hashakah) and the water already on the hand (in the case of Netilah) needs to be made Tahor or rectified in some other way, for which a stronger form of attachment is necessary.)

According to the Ri, the Gemara's refutation of the proof from the Beraisa is clear. "Dilma l'Inyan Mikva'os" means that perhaps "Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach" works only to attach one Mikvah to another (to make the minimum required Shi'ur of water), but it does not work to make Hashakah. Therefore, the Beraisa provides no proof for the Halachah in the case of Netilah.

(b) How is Rebbi Yehudah's statement to be understood? If he maintains that Nitzok does not serve to attach two groups of water, why does he state that the water on the first person (whose foot is still in the Mikvah) is considered attached to the Mikvah?

1. According to the RI cited by Tosfos, the answer is simple. Katafras does not work for Hashakah but it does work for Mikva'os, and thus it works in the case of the person whose foot is still in the Mikvah.

2. RABEINU TAM, also cited by Tosfos, gives a different answer. He explains that there are two types of Katafras. When the water on top is on its way down and will fall into the lower water, the concept of "Gud Achis" applies and thus one may immerse in the lower Mikvah. This applies in the case of the person's foot which is still in the Mikvah. The Mishnah, however, refers to two bodies of water attached by a stream, where the water in the upper pool is not flowing down. In this case, Katafras is not a Chibur. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim disagree about the law in a case in which two witnesses say "b'Fanai Nichtav" and one witness says "b'Fanai Nechtam." In its second approach, the Gemara explains that even when both (or all) of the witnesses are Sheluchim of the husband, the Chachamim invalidate the Get, because they follow the view of Rabah who requires that "b'Fanai Nichtav..." be said in order to ensure that the Get was written Lishmah. In contrast, Rebbi Yehudah follows the view of Rava who requires "b'Fanai Nichtav" only for the purpose of Kiyum. Since, in this case, there are two Sheluchim who testify about the Gerushin, the enactment of "b'Fanai Nichtav" is not applicable; the Sheluchim are valid witnesses themselves for the Kiyum of the Get.

According to this approach, the Gemara understands that Rebbi Yehudah accepts the Get even when one Shali'ach says "b'Fanai Nichtav" alone and the second Shali'ach says "b'Fanai Nechtam" alone.

Rebbi Oshiya questions this assertion from the Beraisa which states, "Rebbi Yehudah Machshir ba'Zu v'Lo ba'Zu," which presumably means that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim in the case of one Shali'ach says "b'Fanai Nichtav" and the second says "b'Fanai Nechtam." The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Get is invalid when the Shali'ach says "b'Fanai Nechtam v'Lo b'Fanai Nichtav."

REBBI AKIVA EIGER asks that the Gemara should give a much simpler answer. Rebbi Yehudah certainly agrees with the Chachamim that where only one of the witnesses is a Shali'ach of the husband, even when both say "b'Fanai Nichtav" and one says "b'Fanai Nechtam," the Get is invalid. Since the single witness who says "b'Fanai Nechtam" is not a Shali'ach, he is not entitled to testify about the Gerushin itself, and thus the enactment of "b'Fanai Nichtav..." applies to the Shali'ach and requires that he testify about both the Kesivah and the Chasimah (in order for people not to confuse the enactment of "b'Fanai Nichtav..." with the general law of Kiyum Shtaros which needs two witnesses).

Since Rebbi Yehudah agrees in this case, why does the Gemara not answer simply that the Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah is "Machshir ba'Zu v'Lo ba'Zu" refers to this case?

ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER answers (based on Tosfos) that if only the witness who says "b'Fanai Nechtam" is a Shali'ach, not only is there a possibility that Rebbi Yehudah validates the Get, but even the Chachamim may validate it as well! The reason for this is a follows: In the case of two who say "b'Fanai Nichtav" and one who says "b'Fanai Nechtam," there is enough testimony to validate the Get -- two witnesses on the Kesivah and one Shali'ach on the Chasimah. The only reason the Chachamim invalidate the Get in such a case is to differentiate between "b'Fanai Nechtam," for which one Shali'ach suffices, and Kiyum Shtaros for which two witnesses are necessary.

The Chachamim rule that the one who says "b'Fanai Nechtam" also must say "b'Fanai Nichtav" so that people will see that this method is not the conventional form of Kiyum Shtaros (for which it is not necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav"). Therefore, when two witnesses say "b'Fanai Nichtav" and one says "b'Fanai Nechtam," the Get is invalid.

However, if the witnesses on the Kesivah are not Sheluchim while the witness on the Chasimah is a Shali'ach, people will not make a mistake. They will see clearly that for the Kesivah, on which the Shali'ach did not testify, two witnesses are necessary. For the Chasimah, on which the Shali'ach testified, the single Shali'ach is believed alone. Everyone will understand that he is believed because of the special Takanas Chachamim, and no one will confuse this form of Kiyum with the general form of Kiyum Shtaros.

This logic applies both according to the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah. This is why the Gemara does not say that this is this case in which Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)