Gittin 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish said:

even if there is one date for all of them, it is also considered

the aforementioned names to be within the category of a

“form”

separate from the bill of divorce. And since the lower form interrupts between the upper form and the signatures of the witnesses, the witnesses’ signatures are not associated with it.

But what are the circumstances of “generalization”?

When it is written: “We, so-and-so and so-and-so, divorced our wives, so-and-so and so-and-so.”

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to this before him: According to Rabbi Yohanan, who said

if there was

one date for all of them, this is a “generalization,”

even though their names are mentioned separately:

Let us be concerned that perhaps, when the witnesses signed,

only

the last one is whom they signed for!?

And from where do we know that they intended to sign for all of them?

And the proof that one must be concerned for this is:

Is it not taught in a beraita: If witnesses are signed on a “greeting,”

that appears

at

the end of the

bill of divorce, it is invalid; we are concerned

perhaps

the witnesses

signed on the greeting,

and not on the bill of divorce.

And we answer:

No,

is it not

stated concerning it,

concerning this beraita:

Rabbi Abbahu said: For my part, Rabbi Yohanan explicitly explained it to me:

If the greeting was written as a separate matter, so that the wording was

“Greet

him,”

the bill of divorce is invalid,

because perhaps they signed only on the greeting and not on the bill of divorce.

But if it was written

“and greet him,”

as a continuation of the bill of divorce, it is

valid,

because it is now evident that they signed on the bill of divorce as well.

And if so,

here too

we can establish the case in our Mishna as referring to a document

in which it is written: “So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so,”

as it is thereby evident that the witnesses signed on all of them.

Furthermore,

the Gemara raises another difficulty

against Rabbi Yohanan, who said

if it was written

with a date for each one, this is a “form,”

and the Gemara assumed that each one had a different date:

Why specifically,

why do you come to invalidate it

because of a “form”

for each one, and because the witnesses sign only on the last form?

Let it follow,

that you should invalidate it for anyone whose date was written before the final date in the bill of divorce, because of the earlier date,

as it would be

the earlier date a reason to invalidate it in his case, as we find that even when the bill of divorce is

written

during the

day,

and the date of its writing that day is written in it, and it is

signed

afterward,

at night,

it is invalid, because on the night following it the date is already different.

Now, the date of the signing applies only to the last one, whereas the other divorcees in this bill of divorce have a different date, earlier than the date of the signing. If so, we should invalidate their bills of divorce because their date precedes the time of the signing.

Mar Keshisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what we say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

There were not different dates in the bill of divorce. Rather, the same date was written for each one separately,

as it is written in each of them: “On the first day of the week,” “on the first day of the week.”

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Reish Lakish, who said

if it was written in the bill of divorce

with one date for all of them, it is also a form, and what are the circumstances of “generalization”? When it is written as follows: “We, so-and-so and so-and-so, divorced our wives, so-and-so and so-and-so.”

You should raise a difficulty: How can such a bill of divorce be valid? After all, if so,

two women are found to be divorced with one bill of divorce.

And

if

the Torah said: “And he shall write for her,”

and we expound: He shall write a bill of divorce for “her” alone,

and not

a bill of divorce that is both

for her and

also

for her fellow wife.

Rav Ashi said to him: This bill of divorce is valid only in a case

where he returned

and

wrote: “So-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so,”

so that there is a separate bill of divorce for each woman.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

But, on the other hand, one can raise the following difficulty:

What is different

about a woman’s bill of divorce, which should be invalidated if it is written for two women together,

from that which is taught

with regard to a deed of emancipation for a slave, whose emancipation is equated with a woman’s divorce:

If one writes all his property to his two slaves, they acquire

each half of the property, and each of them is half a free man and half the other’s slave,

and they emancipate one another!?

But this is a deed of emancipation for two slaves together! Rav Ashi said to him:

But is it not so

that we

established

that this beraita is dealing

with

one who writes

two deeds

for his two slaves, one separate deed for each, and delivers them simultaneously, in which case each acquires half the property through a separate deed.

It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan. It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish.

It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan: If five men wrote in one bill of divorce: “So-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so, and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so,” with one date for all of them, and the witnesses are below, all of them are valid, and it shall be given to each and every one.

And if he wrote

a date for each and every one, and the witnesses are below, the one with whom the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If there is space between them, it is invalid; but if not, it is valid, because the date does not interrupt between them.

It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish: If five men wrote a generalization in one bill of divorce: “We, so-and-so and so-and-so, divorced our wives, so-and-so and so-and-so: So-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so,” with one date for all of them, and the witnesses are below, all of them are valid, and it shall be given to each and every one.

If there is a date for each and every one, and space for each and every one, and the witnesses are below, the one with whom the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid.

Rabbi Meir says: Even if there is no space between them, it is invalid, because the date interrupts between them.

And according to Reish Lakish, why specifically,

why did the tanna state

“a date for each and every one”?

Did he not say

Reish Lakish:

“With one date for all of them, it is also a ‘form’”?

And we answer:

This applies only where he did not combine them initially,

to include them all together with the expression “we.”

But here, where he combined them initially,

therefore only

if he separates them with a date, no.

Then it is a form;

if not, it is not.

Introduction:

This Mishna deals with the signatures of Jewish witnesses who sign in the manner of the Greeks.

Although witnesses may sign in any language, if the witnesses sign in “Greek” together with witnesses who sign in Hebrew, there are several differences in law, which are explained in the Mishna.

Our early authorities disagreed concerning the nature of the signature of a “Greek” witness. Some say that it is a signature written from left to right in a foreign language, as is customary in most foreign languages. Others say that the difference lies only in the wording of the signature: among the Greeks, a signature reading “Reuven son of Yaakov” means that the signing witness is named Yaakov and is the son of Reuven. Rashi explains the Mishna according to the latter interpretation.

Mishna:

Two bills of divorce

that he wrote on one sheet,

one on

half

of

the sheet

and the other,

on that same sheet—the one on the right side of the sheet and the other on its left side—then:

If, on the bill of divorce on the right side of the sheet,

two Hebrew witnesses come

and sign

beneath this bill of divorce,

the right-hand bill of divorce, and their signatures continued

beneath this one,

beneath the left-hand bill of divorce, so that beneath the right-hand bill of divorce were the names of the witnesses, while on the left-hand bill of divorce were the names of their fathers].

And there were another

two witnesses [Hebrew witnesses]

who signed in the manner of the

Greeks [that is, their signature “Reuven son of Yaakov” is interpreted by them as “the son of Reuven,” who is “Yaakov,” with the result that the names of the witnesses were beneath the left-hand bill of divorce, while the names of their fathers were beneath the right-hand bill of divorce]

that is, their signature “Reuven son of Yaakov” is understood by them as “son of Reuven,” whose name is Yaakov, so that the witnesses’ names are below the left-hand bill while their fathers’ names are below the right-hand bill—

come

and sign

beneath

the bill of divorce

beneath this

bill of divorce

itself,

so that the name of the witness himself is signed beneath the left-hand bill of divorce, the law is:

The

[same bill of divorce]

with which the first witnesses are read is valid.

That is, if the two Hebrew witnesses signed first, the first, right-hand bill of divorce, beneath which their names appear, is valid, while the latter is invalid, since only the names of their fathers appear beneath it. If the Greek-style witnesses signed first, the second, left-hand bill of divorce is valid, since their names appear beneath it. The Gemara explains why both are not valid.

Important note: The illustration appended in Rashi’s wording “like this” refers to the end of the Mishna, and not to what was explained above.

And if, on the first bill of divorce,

one Hebrew witness and one

witness who signs like a

Greek,

signed in such a manner that the Greek-style witness began signing at the end of the line, on the left side of the sheet, beneath the left-hand bill of divorce, and finished his signature at the beginning of the following line, beneath the right-hand bill of divorce. And since his signature is a Greek-style signature, his name is found beneath the right-hand bill of divorce.

And

likewise, on the second, left-hand bill of divorce,

one Hebrew witness

signed; he too began his signature beneath the bill of divorce on the left and continued it on the following line, beneath the bill of divorce on the right,

and one witness

who signs

in the Greek manner \-

and their signatures

are one beneath the other; both are invalid.

The Gemara will explain the reason for the invalidity.

[This explanation follows Rashi; see Tosafot on the following page, where it is explained that Rashi had a slightly different version of the wording of the Mishna and therefore explained it in this manner.]

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: The one with which the witnesses are read is valid.

And we challenge this:

Let this one be deemed valid

the first bill of divorce

with

the witness’s signature of the name

“Reuven,” and let this one,

the second bill of divorce, be deemed valid

with

the continuation of the signature

“son of Yaakov,” as a witness,

since this too, by itself, is a valid signature.

For we learned:

If he signed only

“son of so-and-so,” as a witness—

is it valid?

And we answer: The Mishna is dealing

with a case where he wrote “Reuven son” on the first

beneath the first bill of divorce,

and “Yaakov, witness,” on the latter,

with the result that there is no valid signature beneath the second bill of divorce.

And we challenge again:

Let this one be deemed valid

the first bill of divorce

with

the signature

“Reuven son,” and let this one,

the second bill of divorce, on which is written

“Yaakov, witness,”

be attributed not to the signature of Reuven, but to another person named Yaakov. And although Yaakov did not sign his father’s name, it is nevertheless valid.

For we learned: If he signed only

“a

certain man, as a witness,”

it is valid!

And we answer: The Mishna is dealing

with a case where he did not write “witness,”

but only “Reuven son of Yaakov,” and we have not found that writing a name alone is called a signature.

And if you wish, say: Actually,

it is referring

to a case where he wrote “witness,” and

it is dealing with a case where

we know that this signature

beneath the second bill of divorce

does not belong to Yaakov.