לעולם הוא בן חורין עד שיאמר כל נכסיי נתונין לפלוני עבדי חוץ מאחד מריבוא שבהן

He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated. In any case, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when the document states: All my property, a distinction is drawn between the emancipated slave and the property, as claimed by Rava.

והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אף על פי שקילס רבי יוסי את רבי שמעון הלכה כרבי מאיר דתניא כשנאמרו דברים לפני רבי יוסי קרא עליו המקרא הזה שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman said: Even though Rabbi Yosei praised the ruling of Rabbi Shimon with regard to this issue, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the first tanna in that mishna. The Gemara elaborates how Rabbi Yosei bestowed praise. As it is taught in the Tosefta ( Pe’a 1: 13): When these matters were said by the Sages before Rabbi Yosei, he recited this verse about him: “ He kisses the lips that give the right answer” (Proverbs 24:26). Despite this praise, the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לעבדו ועמד חוזר בנכסים ואינו חוזר בעבד

With regard to Rav Adda bar Mattana’s proof, the Gemara asks: And did Rav Naḥman actually say this, that we do not divide the statement? But didn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman said: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote all of his property to his slave, and afterward he recuperated and arose from his illness, he can retract his transfer of property with regard to the gift of the property to the slave, but he cannot retract his transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave.

חוזר בנכסים מתנת שכיב מרע הוא ואינו חוזר בעבד שהרי יצא עליו שם בן חורין

The Gemara clarifies: He can retract the transfer of the property, as it is the gift of a person on his deathbed. By rabbinic decree, no formal act of acquisition is required for a gift of this kind, as it was given based on the assumption that the owner is about to die. If he does survive, the gift is canceled. But he cannot retract the transfer with regard to the emancipation of the slave, as it has been publicized about the slave that he has the status of a freeman. This shows that Rav Naḥman accepts the principle that we divide the statement, as one portion of this document is accepted while the other part is rejected.

אלא אמר רב אשי התם היינו טעמא משום דלאו כרות גיטא הוא

Rather, Rav Ashi said: There, where Rav Naḥman ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he did not do so because he holds that we do not divide the statement, as this is not the issue in dispute. Instead, this is the reason: Because it is not a document that fully severs the ownership of the slave. A bill of manumission must fully sever the bond between slave and master. Since the master left over some property, which may include the slave, for himself, the bill of manumission does not fully sever their relationship. However, with regard to the basic issue of whether or not we divide a single statement, Rav Naḥman agrees with Rava that we do divide a statement.

אם יש עליו עוררין יתקיים בחותמיו ערער כמה אילימא ערער חד והאמר רבי יוחנן דברי הכל אין ערער פחות משנים

§ The mishna teaches that if there are those who contest a bill of divorce that was brought within Eretz Yisrael, where it is not necessary to state the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, it should be ratified through its signatories. The Gemara asks: How many people raise this contestation? If we say that this contestation is by one person, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery, but didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees that a contestation to a document may be brought by no fewer than two people?

ואלא ערער תרי תרי ותרי נינהו מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני אלא ערער דבעל

But rather, you will say that the contestation involves two people claiming that the bill of divorce is a forgery, who are subsequently countered by two others who ratify it. If so, they are two and two. What did you see that you relied on these witnesses? Rely instead on these. Why does the court accept the testimony of the witnesses who ratify the bill of divorce rather than those who contest its validity? The Gemara therefore concludes that this is referring to a case in which one person contests, however, the contestation is raised by the husband himself, who claims that the bill of divorce is a forgery.

מתני׳ המביא גט ממדינת הים ואינו יכול לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אם יש עליו עדים יתקיים בחותמיו

MISHNA: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce has witnesses signed on it, it should be ratified through its signatories. The witnesses themselves or someone who recognizes their signatures should ratify it, in the manner of typical documents.

אחד גיטי נשים ואחד שחרורי עבדים שוו למוליך ולמביא וזו אחת מן הדרכים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים

Both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same with regard to the halakhot of delivering the document from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas and with regard to bringing it from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, i. e., the agents for both types of documents must declare that it was written and signed in their presence, and their statement is accepted. And this is one of the ways in which the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission.

גמ׳ מאי אינו יכול לומר אילימא חרש חרש בר אתויי גיטא הוא והתנן הכל כשרין להביא את הגט חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: He is unable to say? If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha?

אמר רב יוסף הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתנו לה כשהוא פיקח ולא הספיק לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם עד שנתחרש

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything.

אחד גיטי נשים ואחד שיחרורי עבדים תנו רבנן בשלשה דרכים שוו גיטי נשים לשיחרורי עבדים שוו למוליך ולמביא וכל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים וכל השטרות

§ The mishna teaches that both bills of divorce and bills of manumission are the same in that the agent who brings them is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Sages taught: In three ways the halakhot of bills of divorce are equal to the halakhot of bills of manumission: They are equal with regard to one who delivers and one who brings, i. e., if one takes a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission to a country overseas from Eretz Yisrael, or if he brings it from there, he is required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission, as Samaritan witnesses are permitted to serve as witnesses for these documents. And with regard to all documents