Gittin 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

This is an early-dated get, since there is a discrepancy between the date of writing and the date on which each of the witnesses signed. Nevertheless, the get is valid, because

it is worthwhile,

it is appropriate

to rely on Rabbi Shimon—

who validated an early-dated get in the Mishna—

in a time of pressing need.

Here, the case is one in which the husband who sent the get has gone on his way, or the woman has already married; and after the fact we permit an early-dated get, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. And we object:

But didn’t Reish Lakish say: Rabbi Shimon validated an early-dated get

only

if

it was given to the woman

immediately?

However,

if it was given to her

within ten days from this point,

from the time it was written,

Rabbi Shimon did

not validate it, because we are concerned that perhaps the husband reconciled with her and secluded himself with her.

Here, the witnesses signed from this point until ten days later. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi validate the get in accordance with Rabbi Shimon? Even according to Rabbi Shimon, the get is invalid, according to Reish Lakish!

And we answer:

In that

dispute—whether Rabbi Shimon validated a get even when there is an interval of ten days between its writing and the witnesses’ signatures—Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

held in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s opinion,

that we are not concerned that perhaps the husband reconciled with her. And even when there is a ten-day interval between the writing and the signing, Rabbi Shimon validates it.

But there is still a difficulty for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

But didn’t Rabbi Yohanan say

that only

two are considered witnesses,

while all the others—the remaining signatories—sign the get only as a condition? According to this view, the Gemara explained above that if two witnesses sign on the same day, and the others sign from that point until ten days later, the get is not an early-dated get, since the two witnesses signed on the day it was written, while the others are not witnesses. If so, why did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi validate the get on the grounds that in a time of pressing need one may rely on Rabbi Shimon? Even according to the Rabbis, the get is valid, since it is not an early-dated get!

And we answer:

In that

dispute—whether all of them are considered witnesses, or whether the others sign only as a condition—Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

held in accordance with Reish Lakish’s opinion,

that all of them are considered witnesses. Consequently, the get is an early-dated get, since some of its witnesses signed a considerable time after the day it was written. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had to validate the get, because in a time of pressing need one may rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who validates an early-dated get.

Mishna:

This Mishna explains the laws governing the writing of a get:

With any substance they write

the get:

with ink, with sam,

a liquid substance composed of metal ores,

with sikra,

a red pigment used as a protective coating for wood and metals,

and with komos,

a substance extracted from tree resin,

and with kankantum.

This is a type of ink that will be explained in the Gemara.

And with anything—

with any writing

that is permanent.

They may not write the get: neither with liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that is not permanent.

Until this point, the Mishna lists the types of ink; from here onward, it discusses the surfaces on which the get may be written:

On anything they write: on the leaf

that has been detached

of

an

olive tree.

And on the horn of a cow,

even if the horn is still attached to the cow’s body,

but only if he

gives her the cow

itself. However, he may not detach the horn and give her only the horn, as will be explained.

On the hand of a slave, and

only if he

gives her the

entire

slave.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: They may not write on anything that possesses a living spirit

such as a slave or an animal.

Nor on food,

such as an olive leaf, which is food for animals.

Gemara:

The Gemara now explains the types of ink mentioned in the Mishna.

Ink,

this is what is called

“diyuta.”

Sam,

this is what is called

“sama.”

Sikra—

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: “Its name is sakarta.”

Komos,

this is what is called

“koma.”

Kankantum—

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Shmuel:

this is

“ḥarta de’ushpakh,”

the black pigment used by shoemakers [“ushpakh” means shoemakers].

We learned in the Mishna:

“And with anything that is permanent.”

And we inquire: The word “anything” indicates an inclusion;

what does it come to include?

What does it come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include that which Rav Ḥanina taught: If they wrote

the get

with mei teriya,

water in which fruit has been soaked and which has taken on the color of the fruit, with the color

of afatsa—

rainwater containing gallnuts—the get

is valid.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: If they wrote

the get

with lead—

lead dust in water—

with black—

charcoal—

or with shiḥor—

which is the ḥarta de’ushpakh mentioned above—the get

is valid.

It was stated: One who applies black ink

over

sikra,

which is red ink,

on Shabbat—

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish both say: He is liable to bring two

sin-offerings:

one on account of writing

the new writing—the black.

And one on account of erasing

the old writing—the red.

But if on Shabbat he wrote with

ink

black

over ink

black, or if on Shabbat he wrote with

sikra,

red ink,

over sikra,

red ink, he is

exempt.

For the new writing has no significance.

And if on Shabbat he wrote with

sikra,

red ink,

over ink

black—

The amoraim disagree in this matter:

Some say he is liable, and some say he is exempt.

Some say he is liable

because

he is erasing

the lower black writing by applying sikra over it.

And

some say he is exempt,

because he is merely damaging the lower black writing.

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign, what is the ruling regarding having others write their names for them

the names of the witnesses

with sikra,

red ink,

and

the witnesses

sign

over the sikra with black ink?

Does

the upper writing

over the lower writing count as

writing,

so that there are valid signatures of witnesses here?

Or

does upper writing over lower writing

not

count as

writing,

so that there is no signature of witnesses here?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Upper writing over lower writing

is not writing.

Reish Lakish said to him:

Reish Lakish:

But did you not teach us, our teacher,

that

upper writing is writing

and is considered writing

with regard to Shabbat,

as you said that one who writes black ink over sikra is liable to bring two sin-offerings on Shabbat? You maintain that black writing over red writing is considered writing; why, then, is it not considered writing with regard to the signatures of witnesses?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan:

And merely because we infer

that we presume this is writing, although we are not certain of it,

shall we perform an act

of leniency, permitting witnesses to sign in this manner? That is why I said that the witnesses may not sign in this way, since I am uncertain whether this is writing. And even with regard to Shabbat, he is not actually required to bring a sin-offering for this, since there is a possibility that he is not liable for a sin-offering; if he were to bring one, it would constitute bringing non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard, since one who is not liable for a sin-offering may not consecrate it and bring it as a voluntary offering.

It was stated: Witnesses who do not know how to sign

their names—what should they do?

Rav said: We cut a blank sheet of paper for them—

we inscribe their names into the paper—

and

they

fill in the incisions,

that is, the place of the incisions, with

ink.

And Shmuel said:

They should write their names for them

with lead—

they should rub a piece of lead on the parchment of the get. Rubbing lead on parchment leaves a black mark, and they should use the rubbing to mark the names of the witnesses; the witnesses themselves then sign in ink over the lead marking.

And we object: Is it conceivable

that you might have thought

that they may write for them with lead? The lead marking is complete writing, and the witnesses’ writing in ink over it would not be considered writing, since it would be writing over complete writing.

And

the proof that a lead marking is considered complete writing is

that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: If they wrote

the get

with lead,

or

with black

—charcoal—or

with shiḥor—

“ḥarta de’ushpakh,” as explained above—the get

is valid.

This proves that it is writing. If so, how could Shmuel say that they may write for the witnesses with lead?

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

That

which Shmuel said—that they write for the witnesses with lead—refers to a marking made

with avra,

with an actual piece of lead, without any mixture of water. This marking is weak and is not considered writing; therefore, when the witnesses sign over it, their writing is considered writing.

Whereas

that

which Rabbi Ḥiyya said, that one may write a get with lead, means

with maya de’avra,

water in which lead has been soaked, with which one writes a strong, complete script. It is certainly impossible to have witnesses sign over it.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

There is another solution for witnesses who do not know how to sign: They should have their names written for them

with mei milin,

gallnut water, which is not considered writing.

And we object:

But didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina teach: If they wrote

a get

with mei teriya and afatsa—

with rainwater or with gallnuts—the get

is valid!

This proves that gallnut water is considered complete writing. How, then, could Rabbi Abbahu say that the witnesses should have their names written for them with gallnut water? It would be complete writing, and anything they wrote over it would be of no consequence!

And we answer:

That

which Rabbi Abbahu said—that the witnesses should have their names written with mei milin—refers to a case where the parchment

has been treated with gallnuts

as will be explained.

And

that

which Rabbi Ḥanina said, that one may write a get with mei milin, refers to parchment

that has not been treated with gallnuts,

and therefore writing with gallnut water is visible on it.

The reason for the distinction is that on parchment treated with gallnuts, writing with gallnut water is not visible, because

mei milin

are not visible

over mei milin

of another application.

Rav Pappa said:

There is another solution for witnesses who do not know how to sign: They should have their names written for them

with spittle.

And likewise Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox merchant—

this is what Rav Pappa instructed a cattle merchant named Pappa: The witnesses should have their names written with spittle, and the witnesses should sign over it.

And we say:

And this applies

to using these solutions only

with regard to gittin,

because of the plight of a woman whose husband’s whereabouts or status prevents her remarriage, the Sages were lenient in accepting witnesses in this manner.

But with regard to monetary documents,

documents recording monetary claims,

no.

For the holder of the document can seek other witnesses, and there is no need to be lenient and permit signatures by such witnesses.

For there was a certain

man

who performed an act

using witnesses who did not know how to sign

with regard to other documents

in one of the ways mentioned,

and Rav Kahana flogged him

—

Rav Kahana punished him.