Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A GET SIGNED AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN

1. Question: But Reish Lakish said, R. Shimon only permits when they sign that night - if they sign during the next 10 days, it is invalid!
2. Answer: Regarding that law, R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds as R. Yochanan (that if they sign within 10 days, it is valid).
3. Question: But R. Yochanan says, only 2 are witnesses, the rest may sign at any time!
4. Answer: Regarding that, he holds as Reish Lakish.

(a) (Mishnah): We may write with anything - with ink, yellow die, red lead, sap, vitriol or any die that lasts;

1. We may not write with drinks, fruit juice or anything that does not last.

(b) We may write on anything - on an olive leaf, on a cow's horn or a slave's hand (and he must give her the cow or slave);

1. R. Yosi ha'Gelili says, we may not write on something living, nor on food.

(c) (Gemara) Question: 'Any die that lasts' - what does this include?
(d) Answer: As R. Chanina taught - if he wrote with water in which gallnuts were soaked or with gallnut juice, the Get is valid.
(e) (R. Chiya): If he wrote with lead, coals, or vitriol, the Get is valid.
(f) (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): If one writes with black ink over red dye on Shabbos, he is liable for writing and for erasing;

1. If he writes with black ink over black ink, or red dye over red dye he is exempt;
2. If one writes with red dye over black ink - some say he is liable, some say he is exempt.

i. Some say he is liable - he erases (covers) what was written.
ii. Some say he is exempt - he ruins the writing.

(a) Question (Reish Lakish): If witnesses do not know how to sign their names - may we write their names in red dye, and they will write over this in blank ink?
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): No.
(c) Question (Reish Lakish): But you taught us, regarding Shabbos, the top writing is considered writing!
(d) Counter-question (R. Yochanan): Should we act relying on our estimation?!
(e) (Rav) Witnesses that do not know how to sign their names - we scratch outlines of the letters of their names on a blank paper, and they put ink within the outlines.
(f) (Shmuel): We write their names with lead; they write over our writing.

1. Question: But R. Chiya taught, writing with lead is a valid writing (so writing on top of this is not called writing)!
2. Answer: R. Chiya spoke of writing with water in which lead was soaked; Shmuel spoke of scratching the paper with lead.

(g) (R. Avahu): We write their names with water in which gallnuts were soaked.

1. Question: But R. Chanina taught, writing with water soaked in gallnuts or gallnut juice is a valid writing (so writing on top of this is not called writing)!
2. Answer: R. Chanina spoke of writing on paper that was not treated with gallnuts; R. Avahu spoke of when the paper was treated with gallnuts.

i. In this latter case, the writing is invalid, for writing with gallnuts does not show up on paper treated with gallnuts.

(h) (Rav Papa): We write the witnesses' names in saliva.

1. A case occurred; Rav Papa used saliva to enable Papa Turah to sign.
2. All these leniencies are only by Gitin, not by other documents.

i. Someone helped the witnesses sign in such a manner by a monetary document, and Rav Kahana excommunicated him.

(i) Support (for Rav - Beraisa): Witnesses that do not know how to sign their names - we scratch outlines of the letters of their names on a blank paper, and they put ink within the outlines;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this is only by Gitin of women, but by Gitin of freedom and other documents, if the witnesses can read and sign, they sign; if not, they may not sign.
2. Question: Why does R. Shimon ben Gamliel mention being able to read - the first Tana did not deal with this!

(j) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it should read thusly: Witnesses that do not know how to read - we read the document aloud for them; if they do not know how to sign ...;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this is only by Gitin of women, but by Gitin of freedom and other documents, if the witnesses can read and sign, they sign; if not, they may not sign.
2. (R. Elazar): R. Shimon ben Gamliel's holds that we are lenient by Gitin of women, to facilitate divorce (so women should not be held back from remarrying because the witnesses do not know how to sign).

(k) (Rava): The law is as R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(l) (Rav Gamda, citing Rava): The law is not as R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(m) Question: Can he mean, the law is as Chachamim? But someone helped the witnesses sign in such a manner by a monetary document, and Rav Kahana excommunicated him!
(n) Answer: The law is not as R. Shimon ben Gamliel regarding reading, i.e. if the witnesses can sign but cannot read, we read the document aloud for them, even by other documents.
(o) Rav Yehudah was paining himself to read a document.

1. Ula: Why struggle? R. Elazar is the greatest Chacham of Eretz Yisrael, and they read documents before him and he signs; Rav Nachman has a judge's scribe read before him, and he signs;

i. (Relying on 1 person reading) is only permitted by a judge's scribe, not any scribe; and only regarding someone as Rav Nachman (who was appointed by the Exilarch, who was his father-in-law), not any Chacham.

(p) When a Persian document written by the Nochri courts would come before Rav Papa, he would have 2 Nochrim read the document before him, in different rooms, unaware of why he wanted them to read it;

1. He would then accept the document, and use it to collect even from mortgaged property.

(q) (Rav Ashi): A Persian document signed by Yisraelim - we use it to collect even from mortgaged property.

1. Question: But the witnesses do not know how to read it!
2. Answer: The case is, they know.
3. Question: But we require unforgable (unerasable) writing!
4. Answer: The paper was treated with gallnuts (so the writing cannot be erased).
5. Question: But the last line of the document must summarize the document!
6. Answer: It does.
7. Question: If so - what is Rav Ashi teaching us? That a document may be in any language? A Mishnah teaches this!

i. (Mishnah): A Get written in Hebrew, and the witnesses signed in Yevanis, or vice-versa, is valid.

8. Answer: If from the Mishnah, one might have thought that we only allow this by Gitin - Rav Ashi teaches, we allow it by all documents.

(a) (Shmuel): A man gave his wife a blank paper, and said 'Here is your Get' - she is divorced, we are concerned, perhaps he wrote it with water soaked in gallnuts (which later disappears).
(b) Question (Beraisa): A man told his wife, 'Here is your Get'. She took it and destroyed it; the husband then said that it was an invalid monetary document - she is divorced, the husband is not believed to forbid her to remarry.

1. We only say that she may remarry, because the paper had writing on it - if not, she would be forbidden!

(c) Answer: Shmuel only said that she is divorced when we check the paper with a special dye that makes the writing reappear; if it does not reappear, she is not divorced.
(d) Question: But when she received it, the writing was not there!
(e) Answer: Shmuel only said, we are concerned (she is doubtfully divorced, perhaps the writing had not fully faded and the Get was still legible when she received it).
(f) (Ravina): The 2 witnesses in front of whom a Get is given, they must read it.
(g) Question (Beraisa): A man told his wife, 'Here is your Get'. She took it and destroyed it; the husband then said that it was an invalid monetary document - she is divorced, the husband is not believed to forbid her to remarry.

1. If the witnesses must read the Get, how could he claim it was an invalid monetary document?!

(h) Answer: After the witnesses read it, he stuck it up his sleeve, and then gave it to her.

1. One might have thought, we are concerned, perhaps he switched it and gave her a different paper - we hear, this is not so.

(i) A man threw a Get to his wife among barrels; only a Mezuzah was found.

1. Rav Nachman: A Mezuzah is not generally found among barrels - surely, he threw there a Mezuzah, she is certainly not divorced.

i. But if 2 or 3 Mezuzos were found, just as the others were there from before, perhaps all were there from before, we are concerned that he threw her a Get, and mice took it.

(j) A man entered a synagogue, took a Sefer Torah, gave it to his wife, and said that it is her Get.

1. Rav Yosef: Is there any reason to be concerned (that this may be a Get)?

i. Suggestion: Perhaps he wrote a Get in water of gallnuts in the margin, and now we cannot see it.
ii. Rejection: A Sefer Torah is treated with gallnuts - such writing would never have been legible on the parchment.