Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Chamishah she'Kasvu K'lal' in our Mishnah to mean that one date covered all five Sh'taros, and 'Tofeis le'Chol Echad ve'Echad', that each Get was dated independently. According to Resh Lakish, even the former case is considered Tofeis.
He explains 'Klal' - when they listed first all the men and then the women (i.e. 'P'loni u'P'loni ... Gershu P'lonis u'P'lonis').

(b) The Beraisa says that if witnesses signed after a greeting on the Get - the Get is Pasul, because we are afraid that they signed on the greeting rather than on the Get.

(c) To answer Rebbi Aba's Kashya why we are not worried that, according to our Mishnah too, maybe the witnesses signed only on the last of the five Gitin, we cite Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself - who said that as long as the wording on the Get was '*ve*'Sha'alu bi'Sh'lom ... ' ('and not just 'Sha'alu ... ') it is clear that this is no more than a clause, and that the witnesses will therefore have signed on the entire Get.

(d) This also resolves our problem - because the Tana of our Mishah too, speaks when he wrote 'P'loni u'P'loni (and not just 'P'loni').

(a) Mar Keshisha Rav Chisda's son asked Rav Ashi why it is that, if each Get is dated independently, why are the first four Gitin not Pasul anyway, because they were signed at a later date than they were written. Rav Ashi replied - that our Mishnah speaks when all five Gitin were contained the same date.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Kasav *Lah*" - that one Get cannot cover two divorces ("Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta').

(c) Ravina asked Rav Ashi ...

1. ... why it is that, according to Resh Lakish, who requires the men and the women to be listed independently ('P'loni u'Ploni Gerashnu P'lonis u'P'lonis'), all five Gitin should not be Pasul even in the case of K'lal, because of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta'. Rav Ashi replied - that the Mishnah must be speaking when he then listed them couple by couple, adding 'P'loni Giresh P'lonis, u'P'loni Giresh P'lonis'.
2. ... how, in light of the P'sul of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta', we justify the Beraisa 'ha'Kosev Nechasav li'Sh'nei Avadav, Kanu u'Meshachrerin Zeh es Zeh' (in spite of the Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" from Ishah - Rav Ashi replied that we already established the Beraisa by two independent Sh'taros.

(a) In the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - both have the support of a Beraisa.

(b) In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira disagrees with the Tana Kama. He restricts the P'sul there - to where there is a space between oe Get and the next, but where there is no space, all the Gitin are Kasher.

(c) In the Beraisa that supports Resh Lakish ...

1. ... the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira. His disputant is - Rebbi Meir (who maintains that the date is automatically an interruption between the Sh'tar and the signatures).
2. ... the Tana needs to explain that the Sofer wrote the date on each of the five Gitin - because he is speaking when he had previously listed the couples together, in the way that we explained earlier, whereas Resh Lakish, who invalidates five Gitin in one Sh'tar even if there is only one date, is speaking when he did not do that.

(a) The difference between the way an Ivri (a Jew living elsewhere) signs his name on the Get and the way a Greek Jew signs it is - that the former, whom w shall call Yosef and his father's Shimon, will sign his name Yosef ben Shimon, whereas the latter will sign it Shimon ben Yosef (meaning 'the son of Shimon is Yosef').

(b) If, in a case where two documents are written side by side on one piece of parchment, two Ivrim sign across the page from one side to the other, and two Greek Jews sign the opposite way, our Mishnah validates - whichever Sh'tar is undersigned by the first pair of names (the right-hand Sh'tar, if the Ivrim signed first, the left-hand one, if the Greeks signed first - assuming they signed in Lashon ha'Kodesh).

(c) If an Ivri signs first, then a Greek, then an Ivri and then a Greek, the Tana declares both Sh'taros invalid. Each of the two Greeks signed his first name at the end of the line, directly underneath the second name of the Ivri above him, and 'ben' and the second name at the beginning of the next line, underneath the first name of the Ivri (in which case, we would have expected the Sh'tar to be Kasher).

(a) If someone signs his name as 'ben P'loni' - his signature is valid.

(b) The reason that, in the latter case in our Mishnah, we do not consider the top signature as two, 'Re'uven' on the right, 'ben Ya'akov' on the left, to combine with the signature beneath them is - because the Tana speaks when he signed 'Re'uven ben' on the right, 'Ya'akov' on the left, and 'Ya'akov' on its own is not a valid signature.

(a) A Sh'tar is Kasher if one of the signatories signed 'Re'uven ben' - on the grounds that what he means is - 'Ani B'no shel Reuven'.

(b) And the reason that, in the Reisha of our Mishnah, only the one Sh'tar is Kasher, and not both (by considering 'Reuven ben' as a witness on the right-hand Sh'tar, and 'Ya'akov Eid', as a witness on the left-hand one and likewise in the case of the second witness) is - because it speaks when the signature that signed on the left of the Get (i.e. 'Ya'akov') is not followed by 'Eid'.

(c) The Sh'tar will be Pasul even if he did sign 'Ya'akov Eid' - in a case where we know that this is simply not Ya'akov's signature.

(d) We know that it was not Reuven who signed on the left-hand Sh'tar too, but using his father's name - because a person does not use his father's name when he can use his own.

7)

(a) Rav used to sign his name with the symbol of a fish, Rebbi Chanina with that of a branch of a date-palm. The symbol used by ...

1. ... Rav Chisda was - 'a Samech'.
2. ... Rav Hoshaya was - 'an Ayin' (letters from their respective names).

(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna did not use a letter like the previous two Amora'im, but a symbol like the first two - a ship's mast.

(c) We know that Reuven in the Seifa of our Mishnah, did not use his father's name 'Ya'akov' as a symbol - because people do not have the Chutzpah to use their parents names as symbols.

(a) We prove that the reason in the Seifa of our Mishnah (that not both Gitin are Kasher - the right-hand one, by means of the Ivri witnesses, the left-hand one, by means of the Greek ones) cannot be because of the space between the left-hand Sh'tar and the Greek witnesses, because of Chizkiyah, who said that a Sh'tar whose space one filled with witnesses who are relatives - is Kasher (despite the space between the contents of the Sh'tar and the Kasher witnesses. This proves that a space between the Sh'tar and the Kasher witnesses does not matter as long as it is filled-in.

(b) Ze'iri therefore amends 'Sheneihem Pesulim' in our Mishnah to read -'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.

(c) We nevertheless reconcile our Mishnah with Chizkiyah by suggesting that perhaps they signed 'Gundelis' - meaning that the Greek witnesses took their cue from their Ivri counterparts, signing their on names before the names of their fathers, (in which case, the left-hand Get is Pasul because it has no witnesses, whereas the right-hand one has four.

(a) A Sh'tar that is signed by an Ivri and a Greek Jew - is Kasher (despite their different methods of signing).

(b) Ze'iri cites a Beraisa which reconciles our Mishnah with this ruling. The Beraisa says - 'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.

(c) Our Tana however, specifically rules that the second Get is Pasul - because he suspects that perhaps one of the two Greek witnesses signed 'Gundelis', as we explained earlier (i.e. either the first one took his cue from the first Ivri witness, to sign his own name first [but on the second column], or the second one took his cue from the previous Ivri witnesses [signing his own name first]), leaving us with three witnesses on the second Sh'tar and only one on the second, or vice-versa, respectively.

(d) We refute the contention that the Seifa of our Mishnah speaks when all four witnesses signed across the line - because then, there would not be an Ivri witness on the second Get (and it is clear from both the Mishnah and from the Sugya that there is).

(a) Our Mishnah validates a Get which is written in two columns, which is dated at the beginning of the first column and signed at the end of the second. We are not afraid ...

1. ... that the two columns may have actually contained two Gitin that were not originally written on the same level (i.e. the first Get was written higher up than the second), and that someone cut off the signatures from the foot of the first Get and the date from the top of the second one is - because the Tana is speaking when there is a space at the foot of the first column (proving that it is still intact).
2. ... that he changed his mind about the text of the Get and scrapped the first column, began afresh with a new date on the second, which he then cut off to make it appear like one Get - because the Tana is speaking when there is also a space at the top of the second column, proving that it too, is still intact.
3. ... that after beginning the Get on the first column, he changed his mind about divorcing his wife, and then reconsidered and continued with the Get on the second column - because the first column ends with 'Harei At', and the second begins with 'Muteres' (indicating that the second column is a continuation of the first, and that he did not retract from the first column, because a person would not retract in the middle of a phrase).

(b) The two reasons for invalidating the Get in the previous 'Havah Amina' (the contention that he changed his mind about giving a Get after the first column) are - either because, having changed his mind about giving his wife a Get, what he wrote to date would then be Batel, or because it was then not written on the same day as it was signed.

(c) Rav Ashi offers one answer for all three Kashyos - by establishing our Mishnah when it is evident from the appearance of the Sh'tar (by the standard thickness of the parchment) that neither column has been cut. In this way, he eliminates all three problems in one sweep.

(a) If the witnesses signed on top of the page, at the side or at the back of a regular Get (to preclude a Get Mekushar where the witnesses had to sign on the back) - it is not Kasher.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if two Gitin are written one above the other, but one facing upwards and the other downwards, and the witnesses signed on the space in between ...

1. ... if the two beginnings are facing each other - both Gitin are Pasul (seeing as the set of signatures does not pertain to either Sh'tar).
2. ... if the two ends are facing each other - then the one with which the witnesses' signatures coincides is Kasher.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a Get that is written in Ivris and the witnesses signed in Greek - is Kasher.
2. ... if the Sofer wrote it and one witness signed it - the Get is Kasher (though this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(b) If the witnesses signed ...

1. ... 'Ish P'loni Eid' (omitting his father's name, which is generally inserted) - the Get is Kasher.
2. ... 'ben Ish P'loni Eid' - it is Kasher.
3. ... 'Ish P'loni ben Ish P'loni' - the Get is Kasher.

(c) The Neki'ei ha'Da'as in Yerushalayim used to sign on documents - 'Ish P'loni ben Ish P'loni'. The 'Neki'ei ha'Da'as' were people who would speak concisely.

(d) The Tana rules that if just the family nickname (presumably incorporating the modern surname) of the man and woman were written in the Get, together with their main name - it is nonetheless Kasher.