Abaye advises someone who needs to send his signature into Beis-Din for verification - to take care to sign at the top of the page ...

... for fear that should he lose it, it will be picked up by someone dishonest, who will then write a pre-signed I.O.U.

Such a Sh'tar (which is not signed by two witnesses) - may only be used to claim from B'nei Chorin (but not from Meshubadim).

The reason that someone might need to send his signature into Beis-Din for verification is - because in a case where one witness dies, and the other witness needs to testify together with a third person on the deceased witnesses' signature, he will have to avoid verifying his own signature on the Sh'tar, in order to be able to testify on his co-witnesses' signature (as we learned in Kesuvos, Daf 21a)).

That man, who was a tax-collector, ostensibly asked Abaye for his signature - in order to check it against the signature on the certificates that he handed to Talmidei-Chachamim, allowing them a tax reduction.

When Abaye began signing on top of the Sh'tar (to conform to his own suggestion) - he tried to pull the Sh'tar up, to leave space above the signature for him to write an I.O.U. in Abaye's name.

Abaye commented that - the Chachamim, who had already anticipated this, had outsmarted him.

Abaye advise against writing - the (feminine version of the] numbers three to nine at the end of the line in a Sh'tar (because it will be easy for the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar to change the number from a unit to a ten [e.g. 'Shalosh' to 'Sheloshim').

If, in the process of writing the Sh'tar, one of these numbers happens to come up at the end of the line - the Sofer should make a point of repeating it a couple of times in the course of the Sh'tar, to ensure that it occurs, at least once in the middle of the line (and as we have already learned, if there is a discrepancy in a Sh'tar, we follow the end of the Sh'tar against the beginning).

That purchaser erased the entire left-hand section of the 'Beis', (of the Sh'tar that testified that he had purchased 'Tilsa be'Pardeisa [a third of an orchard]) - changing it into a 'Vav', which now read 'Tilsa u'Pardeisa' (a third plus an orchard)'.

What gave the man's game away was - the unusually wide space between what was left of the 'Beis' and the rest of the word ('Pardeisa').

To induce him to admit his forgery - Abaye tied him to the Amud to give him Malkos.

Abaye did the same with another man - who took the Sh'tar that testified that he purchased 'M'nas Reuven ve'Shimon Achi' (meaning that he had bought the portion of field belonging to those two brothers), and added a 'Vav' to the word 'Achi' (the name of a third brother, and whose property he thereby added to the list of what now belonged to him).

What gave this man's game away was - the lack of space between the 'Vav' and 'Achi'.

When a Sh'tar came before Rava on which he and Rav Acha bar Ada had signed, Rava recognized his own signature, even though the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar had forged both signatures. What gave the game away was - the fact that he placed Rava before Rav Acha bar Ada, whereas Rava was always particular about letting Rav Acha bar Ada sign first.

Rava's surprise at his ability to forge Rav Acha bar Ada's signature - was due to Rav Acha's shaky handwriting, making it extremely difficult to forge.

The man explained that he achieved it by signing, either as he held on to the rope that spanned the river together with the bridge ('a'Metzra'), made for someone crossing over the bridge to hold on to - or by standing on a bucket that was used to draw water from the well.

Our Mishnah discusses some Dinim about writing a Sh'tar. The Tana - permits the man to write a Get, the woman, the receipt of her Kesubah, the debtor, a Sh'tar-Chov, and the seller, a Sh'tar Mechirah, even without the other party being present.

A Get does not require the presence of the woman concerned - because her husband has the right to divorce her against her will.

The common reason for all the other cases is - because it is to their advantage.

A Sofer may only write a Get - if he recognizes both parties.

We will see later why the husband has to pay the Sofer for the Get. He also has to pay him for the woman's receipt of the Kesubah - because he is the one who will benefit from it (as we just explained).

It is obvious why the Sofer is not permitted to write a Sh'tar for the creditor or for the purchaser in the absence of the other party. The borrower and the seller respectively - must pay the Sofer.

The Sofer may only write Sh'tarei Erusin and Nisu'in, Sh'tarei Arisus and Kablanus and Sh'tarei Birurin (concerning two litigants who are choosing a Beis-Din, which will be explained later) - if both parties are present.

'Sh'tarei Erusin' is - the engagement contract entered into between the fathers of the Chasan and the Kalah.

The definition of 'Arisus' is - where Reuven undertakes to work Shimon's field for a percentage of the crops (a half, a third or a quarter, depending on the local custom), which he receives annually; whereas 'Kablanus' is - where he works the field for a fixed amount (of the crops) per annum.

The Chasan, the Mekabel and both parties, respectively - pay the Sofer in the current cases.

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - the witnesses order two independent Sh'tarei Birurin, one for each party.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav initially interprets our Mishnah 'u'Vilevad she'Yehei Makiran' to mean that - the Sofer and the Eidim must recognize the man in the case of the Get, and the woman in the case of the receipt).

This is necessary - because otherwise, we are afraid that the man may give the Get to another man's wife, enabling her to claim her Kesubah with it (it is unclear why, here, we are not afraid that she will consider herself divorced, like we explain in the next case [see also Tosfos DH 've'Leichush']), or that the woman will give the receipt to another divorced man, absolving him from his obligation to pay his wife her Kesubah.

We extrapolate from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's initial interpretation of our Mishnah that - the Sofer and the Eidim do not need to recognize the woman in the case of the Get, and the man in the case of the receipt.

The problem Rav Safra, Rav Acha bar Hunan and Rav Huna bar Chinena have with that is - why are we then not afraid that the former will give the Get to another woman and render her divorced, and that the woman will give the receipt to another divorced man?

Abaye solves the problem by citing Rav, who said - 'Shem ha'Ish be'Get, ve'Hu ha'Din le'Shem ha'Ishah; Shem ha'Ishah be'Shover, ve'Hu ha'Din le'Shem ha'Ish' (so that the inference falls away).

Even if the Sofer does know the name of the man and the woman, says Rav Acha bar Huna, we would be afraid that there is another couple in town with the same names, were it not for a ruling of Rav - who forbids two Yosefs ben Shimon living in the same town to divorce their wives not in the presence of each other (when the Megaresh will be forced to give the Get to his wife, and the woman, the receipt to her husband) and not to the other's spouse.

And to dismiss the suspicion that someone may arrive in town and call himself Yosef ben Simon in order to divorce the real Yosef ben Shimon's wife, Rav Huna (or Rav Acha) bar Chin'na Amar Rav - cites a Chazakah that, once a person has lived in a town for more than thirty days, he would not dare practice such a deception, in case the truth becomes known.

In a case where the Megaresh had not yet lived in the town for thirty days, Abaye suggests that - we test him by calling him by that name to see whether he reacts to it.

Rav Z'vid disagrees with Abaye. According to him - the impostor will be sure to practice his new role and live up to it. Consequently, there is no way he can be believed until his first thirty days have passed.

Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba had signed on a receipt for a Kesubah. When after claiming her Kesubah, her husband produced the receipt - she claimed that it was not on her receipt that he had signed, in which case her current claim was valid.

Initially, he corroborated her claim - because she did not possess the same voice as the woman on whose receipt he had signed.

He changed his mind however - when his co-signatories pointed out that her change of voice was caused by her having aged.

Abaye accepted the revised version of Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba's testimony, in spite of the principle 'Keyvan she'Higid Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid' (once a witness has concluded his testimony, he is not permitted to change it) - because it is not the way of a Talmid-Chacham to be acquainted with a woman's voice, and that his initial error was therefore understandable.

In a similar incident, when a woman claimed that she was not the woman on whose receipt he had signed - Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba replied that she was.

Following his own statement in the previous incident, Abaye nevertheless accepted Rebbi Yirmiyah's testimony, and did not take into account the fact that it is not the way of a Talmid-Chacham to be acquainted with a woman's voice - because that only explains why he might err, but as long as he insists that he recognizes it, we believe him.

Abaye advised Talmidei-Chachamim who go to betroth a woman, to go in the accompany of an Am ha'Aretz - who will recognize the Kalah-to-be later when the wedding takes place.

Otherwise, we are afraid that - they might change the Kalah (in the way that Lavan did), and not recognizing her, the Chasan will end up marrying a woman he did not betroth.