Gittin 87b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

But perhaps

Reuven, who signed the first bill of divorce, signed his father’s name, “Yaakov,” as a separate signature of his own on the second bill of divorce,

he signed with his father’s name,

and there were two separate signatures of Reuven, on the two bills of divorce, and the second bill of divorce should also be valid.

And we answer:

A person does not leave [

leave ]

his name and sign with his father’s name.

And necessarily, his father’s name is the completion of Reuven’s signature, and it follows that there is no signature on the second bill of divorce.

And we challenge:

But perhaps,

Reuven signed on the second bill of divorce only his father’s name as a signature in its own right,

and made it into a sign

as a separate signature on the second bill of divorce, as we find that one signs a sign in place of the actual name.

For Rav

when he signed

drew a fish [

fish ].

And Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch

—a branch of a palm tree.

Rav Ḥisda wrote

only

a samekh,

some sort of sign for his name.

And Rav Hoshaya [drew] an eye; Rabbah bar Rav Huna drew a mast

—the mast of a ship.

And we resolve:

A person is not so brazen as to make it [

use ]

his father’s name

as

a sign.

And now we return to challenge our Mishna, which says: “That one with whom the witnesses are read is valid.”

And let this one be valid

the bill of divorce on the right,

with two Hebrew witnesses,

whether they signed first or whether they signed last.

And let this one be valid

the bill of divorce on the left,

with two Greek witnesses,

whether they signed at the beginning or at the end.

And the difference between the writing, which is in Hebrew, and the signatures, which are in Greek, does not matter to us—

For

indeed

we learned: A bill of divorce that he wrote in Hebrew, and its witnesses

signed in

Greek,

and likewise a bill of divorce that was written

in Greek and its witnesses

signed

in Hebrew, is valid.

And

if you would say, since it is distant,

the signatures, which were written at the end of the bill of divorce, are distant from the bill of divorce itself

by two lines, it is not

the signatures refer to the bill of divorce, and therefore it is invalid—

But Hizkiya said: If between the

signatures and the bill of divorce

he filled it

the blank space

with

the names of witnesses

who are relatives,

it is valid. And there is concern only with an empty blank space, whereas in our Mishna the blank space is filled with the names of the witnesses on one of the bills of divorce; why should we not validate both bills of divorce?

And we answer: Indeed, this is so; according to the law, both are valid, and in fact we find one who taught this way.

For

Ze’eiri taught: Both are valid.

And our tanna

holds that we are concerned

perhaps

the Greek witnesses

signed “gundalita.”

Perhaps they changed the practice of the Greeks and did not sign according to the practice of the Greeks, but rather according to the practice of the Hebrews, and it is possible that all four signatures are only on the bill of divorce on the right, and the other is invalid.

We learned in our Mishna:

One Hebrew witness and one Greek witness

and so on are invalid.

And we refute:

And let this one be valid

the first bill of divorce,

with

the signatures of

one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness.

For the Greek witness began his signature at the end of the first line and completed it at the beginning of the second line, beneath it, so that his name would be beneath the Hebrew witness, and the first bill of divorce has two valid witnesses.

And let this one be valid—

the second bill of divorce

with one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness.

And if you would say that it is impossible to combine a Hebrew witness with a witness who signs in the Greek manner, this is not so!

For indeed we learned: One Hebrew witness and one Greek witness are valid.

And we answer: Indeed, the law is that both are valid, as we find, for

Ze’eiri taught: Both are valid.

And our tanna,

who invalidated both, holds that we are concerned

perhaps

one of the Greeks

signed gundalita, and three are on one, and one on one.

That is, if a Hebrew witness signed and a Greek witness followed him, we are concerned that the Greek witness signed as a Hebrew and wrote his name first. But the form of the Greek signature was that the beginning of the signature was at the end of the first line, and the end of the signature was at the beginning of the line beneath it; and if he intended to place his name first, he is signed on the second one.

And the second Hebrew witness is certainly signed on the second bill of divorce, for the case concerns one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness on the first bill of divorce, and one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness on the second.

And if the additional Greek witness signed in the ordinary manner, not gundalita, then we have three signatures on the second and one on the first, and it is invalid.

Conversely, perhaps the first one signed in the manner of the Greeks and he is signed on the first, while the second Greek witness signed gundalita, and if so, he too is signed on the first. Together with the first Hebrew witness, we have three witnesses on the first, and the second is invalid. Therefore, because of the uncertainty, both are invalid.

Mishna:

a. One who writes a bill of divorce and

leaves part of the bill of divorce,

and continues

and writes it on the second page

—that he continued in a new column—

and the witnesses are below,

at the end of the second column,

it is valid.

b.

The witnesses signed

on the bill of divorce

at the top of the page, or on the side, or on its back,

and the signature was on the back

in a “plain bill of debt,”

which is not folded together with stitching, and one must sign inside it and not on its back,

it is invalid.

c.

He surrounded [

brought near ]

the head of this bill of divorce beside the head of that bill of divorce, with the witnesses in the middle,

between the bills of divorce,

both are invalid.

For the signature is not read together with either of them.

d.

The end of this one is beside the end of that one,

for example, he wrote the first bill of divorce from the beginning of the sheet until its middle, and afterward wrote the second bill of divorce from the bottom of the sheet until its middle, in the opposite direction,

and the witnesses are in the middle,

between the two. Behold,

that

bill of divorce

with which the witnesses are read is valid.

That is, the bill of divorce whose heads of the letters of the signatures face the feet of the letters of the bill of divorce—the witnesses are read together with it; whereas the bill of divorce whose feet of the letters of the signatures face the feet of the letters of the bill of divorce—the witnesses are not read together with it.

e.

The head of this one is beside the end of that one, and the witnesses are in the middle,

for example, he finished writing a bill of divorce and had witnesses sign it, and immediately afterward on the page began another bill of divorce.

The one at whose end the witnesses are read is valid.

f.

A bill of divorce that he wrote in Hebrew, and its witnesses

signed

in Greek.

He wrote it in Greek and its witnesses

signed

in Hebrew, or

they signed

one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, it is valid.

g.

The writing of a scribe and one witness, it is valid [

and above, page 86b, Rav and Shmuel disagree whether the scribe also signed or not ].

h. He signed, “

So-and-so, witness,” it is valid,

even though he did not write his father’s name. Or he signed only

“Son of So-and-so, witness,” it is valid,

even though he did not write his own name.

i. He signed,

“So-and-so son of So-and-so,” and did not write “witness,” it is valid. And so the distinguished men of Jerusalem used to do,

who signed their names without “witness,” because their speech was concise. [And the Tosafot explained that the practice of the distinguished men refers to what follows.]

j.

He wrote his family name

—his family name—

and her family name

—her family name—

it is valid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: He left part of the bill of divorce and wrote it on the second page, and the witnesses are below; it is valid.

We inquire about it:

But let us be concerned: perhaps these are two bills of divorce

for two women—for example, the scribe began the first bill of divorce from the middle of the column downward until its end, and the second bill of divorce from the beginning of the second column until its middle—

and it happened to him

that the first line, which is the

date

of the bill of divorce

of the first,

corresponded to the last line of the second bill of divorce, in which there are

the witnesses of the latter. And he cut it

—he cut from the left column

the date of the latter, and

from the column on the right he cut

the witnesses of the first,

and it follows that he is using two invalid halves of bills of divorce.

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: It is

for example

when there is empty space below

—beneath the first bill of divorce, so that certainly nothing was cut from it, and the second column is the continuation of the first.

But perhaps he cut out the date of the latter,

even though he did not cut from the first column; perhaps he cut the beginning of the bill of divorce from the second column and is using the bill of divorce in the first part, and there are two halves of bills of divorce?

And we answer:

As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said:

it is speaking

when there is empty space below

in the first column,