Gittin 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

Among gentiles who possess

distinctive names

of gentiles and have signed. Since it is uncommon for Jews to be called by such names, there is therefore no concern that people will come to rely upon them. For everyone knows that they are gentiles.

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

—which names are considered distinctive names?

Rav Pappa said:

The names of gentile judges,

such as: Hormiz, Avudina, bar Shivtai, bar Kidrei, Bati, and Nakim Ona.

But the Gemara analyzes the wording:

Your words imply:

but

if the signatories possess

non-distinctive names, what

is the law?

No

—do we not validate the document even when there are witnesses to its delivery, because of the concern that people will come to rely upon them?

Accordingly, a difficulty must be raised concerning the wording of the Mishna:

If so

—if that is the case—

rather than teach the latter clause

—what the Mishna teaches at its conclusion:

“They were mentioned as invalid

[bills of divorce and bills of manumission]

only when they were executed by laymen.”

This implies that documents executed before all gentile courts are valid. This is difficult: according to your explanation, “with distinctive names,” a distinction must also be made concerning those executed before courts. If so,

let the tanna distinguish

—and

teach

—

it there

—in the law of the courts themselves [before whom a bill of divorce was signed], and let him say as follows:

When are these matters stated

—that these bills of divorce can be validated by virtue of the witnesses to their delivery? Only when the signatories are called

by distinctive names of gentiles. But

if the signatories possess

non-distinctive names

—

no!

And the Gemara answers:

This is also what it is saying

—the tanna likewise intended to say. Namely:

When are these matters stated, with regard to courts: With distinctive names. But with non-distinctive names

—they are

considered

— as though they were executed

—like other bills of sale that were executed—

by laymen,

without gentile court judges—and they are invalid. The reason is that these people are not particular about their good name and are not careful to avoid signing falsely.

And if you wish, say

—if you desire another answer, say:

The latter clause

—the conclusion of the Mishna, “They were mentioned, etc.,” does not refer to bills of divorce at all, but

comes

—it comes to refer—

to documents of monetary transactions.

And it is not a continuation of the words of Rabbi Shimon, as we had previously thought. Rather, it is the conclusion of the words of the first Rabbis in the Mishna, who validate all documents brought before gentile courts, such as bills of sale.

And this is what it is saying

—this is what the Mishna says:

“They were mentioned

in the study hall

as disqualified documents of monetary transactions

—that they are invalid—only

when they were executed by a

gentile

layman,

who is not particular about his good name and does not care about signing falsely.

And the Gemara cites a beraita found in the Tosefta of this tractate [chapter 1, halakha 9], in which the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva is explained, as Rabbi Shimon told the Rabbis in Sidon. The position of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning bills of divorce and bills of manumission is also cited.

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said:

Rabbi Shimon said the following to the Rabbis in Sidon: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not dispute with regard to all documents brought before gentile courts.

[And both agree]

that although their signatories are gentiles

—they are valid, even bills of divorce and bills of manumission.

With regard to what did they dispute?

They disputed only when the documents were executed by laymen. Rabbi Akiva validates

even other documents.

And the Rabbis disqualify

other documents,

except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission

—which are valid.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these

[bills of divorce] are not

valid

except

in a place where Jews do not sign

documents, because the gentiles do not allow them to sign. Consequently, everyone knows that the signatories are gentiles, and people will not come to rely upon them.

But in a place where Jews sign

documents, then even when the documents bear distinctive names of gentiles—

no

—we do not validate these bills of divorce, because if we validate them, people will come to validate them even when they bear non-distinctive names.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

A place where Jews do not sign—we should also decree

—we should likewise decree—

lest

—because of—

a place where Jews sign,

and disqualify there bills of divorce signed by gentiles, just as we decreed concerning distinctive names [where there is no concern] on account of non-distinctive names?

And the Gemara answers:

There is a distinction between confusing names and confusing places.

A name with a name

—a distinctive name with a non-distinctive name—

is confused

—people are likely to confuse and mistake one for the other. But

one place with another

—one place with another [places where Jews are permitted to sign and places where they are not permitted to sign]—

is not confused

—people will not err and confuse them. Therefore, we do not decree concerning a place where Jews do not sign. And bills of divorce signed there by gentiles and delivered in the presence of Jewish witnesses to delivery are valid.

The Gemara relates:

Ravina considered validating

—validating—documents that were executed

in the gathering place of the gentiles

—a place where the dignitaries of the gentiles would gather occasionally to judge and adjudicate, not by order of the king—based on the words of our Mishna.

Rafram said to him:

But

we learned: courts

—this is what we learned in our Mishna, and specifically when the document was executed before gentile judges permanently appointed by royal decree, who do not lie because of fear of the king, is it valid. The Gemara continues concerning a document written in the language of the gentiles but delivered before Jewish witnesses:

Rava said: This Persian document

—a promissory note written in Persian and signed by ordinary Persians [gentiles]—

that he delivered to him

—that he delivered it to him [the lender]—

in the presence of witnesses

—in the presence of witnesses—

Jews.

If he does not repay his debt, the law is:

we collect with it

—we collect by means of it—

from

the borrower’s

unencumbered property —

property that is free and not encumbered to anyone.

And the Gemara asks:

But—

but surely

they do not know—

the witnesses [to the delivery] do not know

how to read—

how to read Persian. If so, they do not know what is written in the document, and how will they be able to testify in the future about this loan?

And the Gemara answers:

when they know—

the case is one in which the witnesses know how to read Persian.

And it asks again:

But we require—

surely we require that there be

writing

on parchment processed with gallnuts

that cannot be forged. And there is none—

for the Persian parchments are not processed with gallnuts. Because of this, the amounts written in them can be erased while leaving the signatures intact, and afterward a larger amount can falsely be written.

The Gemara answers: here, the case is one

of parchment processed with gallnuts—

parchments that were processed and cannot be forged.

And another question is raised:

But we require—

surely we must uphold the halakha:

he must repeat

and write

the substance of the document in the final line

of the document, in order to prevent someone wishing to forge it from adding there whatever he wants,

and there is none—

this is not done in Persian documents.

The Gemara answers: here, the case is one

where he repeated it—

where he repeated and wrote the substance of the document in the final line.

But a difficulty may still be raised:

If so—

if so, since all the conditions that validate the document have been fulfilled, they should collect on its basis

from encumbered property—

from property encumbered to creditors—

also—

also?! Why, then, did Rava say that they collect with it only from unencumbered property?

The Gemara answers: this document

has no public voice—

it is not public knowledge. In an ordinary document, the Jews who sign it publicize and disseminate the matter of the loan and the land that became encumbered as a result. But in this document, which was signed by gentiles, the purchaser [who comes to buy land from the debtor] has no way of knowing about the encumbrance. Therefore, they do not collect the land he purchased from him; they collect only from unencumbered land that remains in the possession of the debtor himself.

The Gemara continues concerning the names of gentiles:

He asked him—

he asked him—

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: