Gittin 87a — the Talmud in English

And Resh Lakish said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

even one date for all of them, it is also a tofes,

the names mentioned above being within the category of

“tofes”

a separate part of a get. And since between the upper tofes and the signatures of the witnesses the lower tofes interrupts, the signatures of the witnesses do not relate to it.

But what are the circumstances of “klal”?

Where he wrote: “We, so-and-so and so-and-so, divorced our wives, so-and-so and so-and-so.”

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to it: According to Rabbi Yohanan, who says

if there was

one date for all of them, this is “klal,”

even though their names are mentioned separately:

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

only

on the last one did they sign!?

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: Witnesses who are signed on a “greeting”

that appears

at

the end of the

get, it is invalid; we are concerned

perhaps

the witnesses

signed on the greeting,

and not on the get.

And we answer:

No,

was it not

stated concerning it,

concerning this beraita:

Rabbi Abbahu said: For me, it was explained to me by Rabbi Yohanan himself:

If the greeting was written as a thing in its own right, so that the wording was

“Greet

him peacefully,”

the get is invalid,

because perhaps they signed only on the greeting, and not on the get.

But if it was written

“And greet,”

as a continuation of the get,

it is valid,

because now it is evident that they signed also on the get.

And if so,

here too

we can establish in our Mishna

that it was written in it: “So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so,”

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

And furthermore,

the Gemara raises a difficulty

against Rabbi Yohanan, who says

if it was written

a date for each one, this is “tofes,”

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

Why specifically,

why do you come to invalidate it

because of “tofes”

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

And let it emerge,

let him come to invalidate it for everyone whose date was written before the last date in the get, because of the earlier date,

for it would be

the earlier date a reason to invalidate it with regard to him, as we find that even if

the get was written

on

the day,

and the date of the writing of that day was written in it,

and it was signed

afterward

at night,

it is invalid, because on the night that follows it the date is different.

And behold, the date of the signature belongs only to the last one, whereas for the other divorcees in this get there is a different date, earlier than the date of the signature; and if so, we have reason to invalidate their get on account of an earlier date than the time of the signature.

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

There were not different dates in the get; rather, the same date was written for each one, separately,

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

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Resh Lakish, who says

if it was written in the get

one date for all of them, it is also a tofes, and what are the circumstances of “klal”? That it was written in it as follows: “We, so-and-so and so-and-so, divorced our wives, so-and-so and so-and-so.”

A difficulty arises: how is such a get valid? For if so,

two women are found to be divorced by one get.

And

if

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

and we expound: “For her” alone shall he write a get,

and not

a get that is also

for her and

also

for her fellow.

Rav Ashi said to him: This get is valid only in a case

where he repeated,

where he went back and

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

so that there is a separate get for each one.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

There is, on the other hand, a difficulty:

and what is different

a woman’s get, which must be invalidated if it was written for two women together,

from that which is taught

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

One who writes all his property to his two slaves, they acquire

each one half of the property, and each one 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 no,

is it not that we

established

that this beraita is dealing

with

one who writes

two deeds

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

It is taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan. It is taught in accordance with Resh Lakish.

It is taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Five who wrote within the get: “So-and-so divorces so-and-so, and so-and-so so-and-so, and so-and-so so-and-so,” with one date for all of them, and the witnesses 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 below, the one with whom the witnesses’ names are read is valid.

Rabbi Judah ben Bateira says: If there is space between them, it is invalid; and if not, it is valid, because the date does not interrupt them.

It is taught in accordance with Resh Lakish: Five who wrote a klal within the get: “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 below, all of them are valid, and it shall be given to each and every one.

A date for each and every one, and space for each and every one, and the witnesses below, the one with whom the witnesses’ names are read is valid.

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

And as for Resh Lakish, why specifically,

why did the tanna state

“a date for each and every one”?

Did he not say

Resh Lakish:

“One date for all of them is also a ‘tofes’”!

And we answer:

This applies where he did not combine them at the outset,

to include them together with the wording “We.”

But here, where he combined them at the outset,

therefore only

if he divided the date for them, no.

Then it is a tofes;

if not, no:

Introduction:

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

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

And our early authorities disagreed concerning the nature of the signature of a “Greek” witness. Some say that it is a signature from left to right in a foreign language, in the manner of most foreign languages. And some say that the difference is only in the wording of the language of the signature: among the Greeks, a signature of “Reuben son of Jacob” means that the witness signing is called Jacob, and he is the son of Reuben. Rashi explains the Mishna according to the latter explanation.

Mishna:

Two gittin

that he wrote on one sheet,

this on the

half

of

that

one,

on the same sheet, one on the right side of the sheet and the other on the left side, behold:

If, on the first get, on the right side of the sheet,

two Hebrew witnesses come

and sign

beneath this get,

the right-hand get, and their signature extended

to beneath this one,

to beneath the left-hand get, so that beneath the right-hand get were the names of the witnesses, whereas on the left-hand get were the names of their fathers].

And there were signed there additionally

two witnesses [Hebrew witnesses] who sign in the manner of the

Greeks [that is, the signature “Reuben son of Jacob” is interpreted by them as “son of Reuben,” he being “Jacob,” and it emerges that the names of the witnesses were beneath the left-hand get, whereas the names of their fathers were beneath the right-hand get]

the Greeks

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 get

to beneath

the get

this one, with the signature of the witness’s own name being beneath the left-hand get, the law is:

with the witness’s own name appearing below the left-hand bill, the law is:

The [that get]

that

with which the first witnesses’ names are read is valid.

That is, if the two Hebrew witnesses signed first, the first, right-hand get, beneath which their names appear, is valid, and the last is invalid, since beneath it only their fathers’ names appear. And if the Greeks signed first, the second, left-hand get, is valid, since their names appear beneath it. And in the Gemara it explains why both are not valid.

An important note: The example appended in Rashi with the wording “like this” refers to the end of the Mishna, and not to what was explained above.

And if on the first get there signed

one Hebrew witness, and one witness

who signs like a

Greek,

in such a manner that the Greek began to sign at the end of the line, on the left side of the sheet, beneath the left-hand get, and finished his signature at the beginning of the next line, beneath the right-hand get. And since his signature is a Greek signature, it emerges that his name appears beneath the right-hand get.

And

likewise on the second, left-hand get, signed

one Hebrew witness,

who also began his signature beneath the get on the left side, and continued it on the following line, beneath the right-hand get,

and one witness

who signs

like a Greek \-

and their signatures

come beneath one another, both are invalid.

And in the Gemara the reason for the invalidity will be explained. [

This explanation is according to Rashi; see Tosafot on the following page, for Rashi had a somewhat different version in the wording of the Mishna, and therefore explained it in this manner].

Gemara:

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

And we challenge this:

But let this one be valid,

the first get,

by

the signing of the witness’s name

“Reuben,” and let this one,

the second get, be validated

by

the continuation of the signature

“son of Jacob,” a witness,

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

For we learned:

If he signed only

“son of so-and-so,” a witness—

is it valid?

And we answer: The Mishna is dealing

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

—beneath the first get—

and “Jacob, a witness” on the last one,

and it emerges that there is no valid signature beneath the second get.

And again we challenge this:

But let this one be valid,

the first get,

by

the signature

“Reuben son,” and let this one,

the second get, in which is written

“Jacob, a witness,”

be attributed as not being Reuben’s signature, but that of another person named Jacob. And even though Jacob did not sign his father’s name, it is valid.

For we learned: If he signed only

“a

certain man, a witness,”

it is valid!

And we answer: The Mishna is dealing

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

but rather “Reuben son of Jacob,” and we do not find that writing a name alone is called a signature.

And if you wish, say: Actually,

it is speaking

of a case where he wrote “a witness,” and

it is dealing with a case where

we know that this signature

beneath the second get

is not Jacob’s.