Explanation: Every loan document is called a Get, like it says "a Get Chov that has no Achrayus" (Bava Kama 95a), and it says in Gitin (10a) "any Get with a Kusi witness is Pasul, except for Gitin of divorce and freedom."

This matter is proper to teach in this Perek, and not in Maseches Gitin, and there (in Gitin) it is proper to teach Perek ha'Nizakin, and not in Seder Nezikin;

Here, Agav that Perek Mi she'Mes taught about writing documents when one is healthy or Shechiv Mera, it taught here Get Pashut, which discusses documents;

And there, Agav that Perek ha'Shole'ach discusses [enactments for] Tikun ha'Olam, it teaches after it Perek ha'Nizakin, which discusses this.

Question: According to R. Yirmeyah bar Aba, who says in the Gemara (160b) that they would sign from the bottom to the top, and on the other side of the document opposite the writing, we should be concerned lest [after it was signed, the bearer] wrote above the witnesses' [signatures] whatever he wants, for a Stam document has a margin on the sides, and he erased the original document, and he will make it a Pashut (standard document, in which the signatures are under the text)!

Implied suggestion: [It would be Pasul, for] the document will be on the side of the witnesses. They sign on the black (the dark side of the parchment)!

Rejection: [Even so, it would be Kosher, for] it cannot be forged (i.e. erasures would be evident). It connotes like this in Kesuvos (21a), that the black [side of the parchment in the days of the Gemara] cannot be forged.

It says there that one who wants to show his signature in Beis Din should write on a piece of pottery. (There is no concern lest someone write above his signature "I owe you...", for since it is forgeable, such a document is invalid.)

If it were true (that their black was forgeable), he could show his signature [through signing] on the black (which is more normal, without concern)! Rather, surely it cannot be forged. If so, why is a tied document Kosher? (It can be used to steal!)

Answer #1: He cuts off the margin on the side of the document (so there is no room to write a document on the other side).

Question: In the Gemara, when it challenges Rav Huna, who says that [witnesses sign] between one knot and another outside (on the back, i.e. not the side of the text), we should be concern lest he forge and write inside what he wants, at the end of the document. The witnesses on the back testify about the entire document...

Why don't we answer that he cuts the excess parchment over (at the end) of the document?

Answer (Rivam): He cannot cut it, for he leaves it for the validation that he wants to do at the end. However, from the side he can cut, for there is no concern.

Answer #2: He fills with dots the blank part of the dark side, above the witnesses, so [the bearer] cannot forge there.

Implied question: It says below (163a) that witnesses signed on the dots! (We should say so also here, and disqualify the document.)

Answer: That is when the document and the witnesses are on one side, and there are dots between the witnesses and the document. However, here the witnesses signed on the outside, and there are dots before them, we do not say that they signed on the dots!

Question: We should be concerned lest he write what he wants in the margin between the witnesses until the end of the document, according to the opinion that they sign from below to above, and it is a document and its witnesses in one line! (The first witness begins signing opposite the bottom of the document, and his name goes towards the top. Now Tosfos assumes that the next witness begins after the first finishes, in the same line. The margin discussed is below; he forges there, in the same line with the signatures, before the signatures.)

He cannot cut off [the margin], for he leaves it for the validation!

Answer: He fills it with dots. However, without dots he can forge, like I explained.

And even if witnesses sign one under the other, so now in the line of the document he will forge there is only one witness, still he can write that the witness owes him (i.e. he writes "I owe you") 10,000 Zuz, and it is [a document through] his own signature! Therefore, we must explain that he makes dots.

Observation: Also according to Rav Huna, who says that [they sign] between folds, there is concern lest he erase the entire document on the inside, and he will write above the witnesses' [signatures], or he will write in the margin from the side opposite (in the same line with) the signatures;

[The witness'] own signature is in one line with the [forged] document. [This can happen] if he will not cut off or make dots on everything above and to the side.

Implied question: Likewise there is concern, both according to the opinion that they sign from below to above, and according to the opinion that they sign between knots, in all Pashut documents in which three witnesses sign...

There is concern lest he cut the entire document except for the witnesses and make a tied document opposite those witnesses, and write what he wants, since it is allowed to write on either side [of the parchment]!

Poor answer: We must say that he makes dots on the other side, opposite the witnesses.

Objection: It seems that it is Kosher without dots, since the Gemara did not explain [that one must make dots whenever there are at least three witnesses]!

Answer #3 (Tosfos' Rebbi): We can reject the proof from Kesuvos (21, that the black side cannot be forged). Even without this, we could say that [one who wants to show his signature to Beis Din] signs at the top of a parchment, like below (167a)!

Rather, the reason it says [to sign on pottery is because with parchment, one could err to write in a good place (i.e. from which one could write a document in front of his signature).

Question: This requires investigation, if a tied Get signed with his signature on the other side helps. If so, if he would show his signature on the black, perhaps [someone] would make it tied with his signature.

Distinction: However, from our parchments, which can be forged from the black side, there is no proof to the parchments in their days.

Explanation: The reason [to disqualify when the witnesses are on the back] is lest he make it tied, and the document will be predated. And even if only two witnesses signed, we decree two due to three.

Implied question: A Mekushar (document that is folded and tied) has blank [parchment] between one line and another. If so, a Pashut that has no blank, how can he make it tied, which has no blank?

Answer: It was written like a Pashut (without blank). This is proven from R. Chanina ben Gamliel, who says that a tied in which the witnesses signed inside is Kosher, for he can make it Pashut;

If a tied has blank, how can he make it Pashut? People will realize that it was tied! Rather, surely it did not have blank.

Question: According to the opinion in the Gemara (160b) that [witnesses sign] between knot and knot, [Rami bar Chama] thought that (this is) on the inside. If there is no blank, where will they sign?

Answer #1: In any case, between lines [they can sign, albeit] it will be cramped.

Answer #2: The reason it is Pasul is like the Rashbam explained, because it was not made like Chachamim enacted. It was not made like Chachamim enacted. It was made Pashut, and they did not sign inside;

This is like we disqualify (Gitin 87a) in several ways [that one deviated from Chachamim's instructions of how to make a Get], even [when they signed] on the side of the writing, since the witnesses are not read with the Get.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps there the reason is because we are concerned lest he add to the Get what he wants to, because there are not witnesses underneath. Therefore, we disqualify it.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for we do not make any distinction. Rather, even if he wrote "Sharir v'Kayam", or there is no blank left below, or one of the witnesses signed below and the second above or from the side, it is Pasul, and the same applies here.

Question: If so, all Pashut documents in which three witnesses signed should be Pasul, for one can make them tied, and they will be predated!

Suggestion: [Even if he makes it tied,] it will be judged like a Pashut document (so the date will be correct).

Rejection: [If so,] what was the question in the Gemara (164a) "according to R. Chanina ben Gamliel, the date of this is unlike the date of this"? In this Mekushar, the date is not like in other Mekushar documents!

Answer (Ri): In our Mishnah, they argue about when it is known that he makes the loan a year before the date written in it, like the law of a Mekushar. Now, there is concern lest he pay him (and take a receipt, and the lender will collect again, for the receipt precedes the date of the loan).

Support: Now, Rebbi properly challenged R. Chanina ben Gamliel. Since the date in this Mekushar is a year after the loan, it is postdated, for they will count only from the date written;

Sometimes he borrows with [this document], and when he wants to pay, [the lender] says that he lost it, and he writes a receipt "on this day I paid him 100 Zuz", and afterwards [the lender] will make it a Pashut document, and people will think that now (a year after the loan) is the time of the loan [so the receipt was not for this loan].

[The Gemara] answers that R. Chanina ben Gamliel holds that we do not write receipts. (The borrower will not pay until the lender finds the document.)

Question: Still, it is a little difficult. If its law is like a Pashut that comes in front of us, why does it say "when the time comes, he will make it a Pashut document"? Even without this, it is judged like a Pashut, like I explained regarding a Mekushar whose witnesses signed inside. We collect with it like the law of a Pashut!

Answer (Ri): If he does not make it Pashut, rather, [leaves it] like it is, since the receipt says that he paid what is written in the document, and it is tied, there are Raglayim l'Davar (circumstantial evidence) that he paid it, and we do not collect with it;

However, when he makes it Pashut, [people] cannot sense that there is fraud.

Question: Why wasn't our Mishnah difficult for Rebbi, that predated documents are Pasul, and postdated documents are Kosher? We can say [that there is concern for fraud] like it says here. Why are [postdated documents] Kosher?

Answer #1: [Rebbi] holds like the opinion that also postdated documents are Pasul.

Answer #2: When he makes a receipt, he will write in it "I paid the loan in which the date Ploni was written [in the document]." Now, there is no concern for anything.

Answer #3: He makes a receipt without a date. Therefore, postdated documents are Kosher.

Distinction: However, here, a Mekushar whose witnesses are inside is postdated, and it does not cross his mind to write correspondingly a receipt without a date, or for the date written in the [loan] document, for a tied document;

This is because it does not cross his mind that it is not from the date written, rather, from a year before the date.

However, a postdated document, at the time of writing the receipt, it is known that it is postdated, and it crosses his mind to write a receipt [without a date, or for the date written in the loan document] so he will not come to [fraud].

Answer #4: I say that if he makes a tied receipt (Rashash - he writes that it is a receipt for a Mekushar), he will not come to concern at all. There was no need to say that we do not write receipts.

Explanation: "V'Chasuv" alludes to the Tofes (the standard part of a document that is always the same). "Va'Chasom" alludes to the Toref (the details particular to this document, e.g. the seller, the buyer, the date, and the field);

Toref is called [in the verse] Chasimah, like we say in Gitin (21b) "if they wrote [a Get] on something attached, detached it, Chasmo and gave it to her, it is Kosher... (the Gemara asked that the Mishnah forbids writing while it is attached, and answers) "as long as he left over the place of the Toref." (I.e. Chasmo, which was after detaching, refers to writing the Toref.)

Explanation (cont.): "V'Ha'ed Edim" is like the simple meaning (witnesses sign).

Support: Similarly, the other verse "va'Ekach Es Sefer ha'Miknah" is the Tofes. "V'Es ha'Chasom" is the Toref. "V'Es ha'Galuy" is the witnesses, which is the margin of the document;

"Mitzvos v'Chukim" - also in a Pashut there are many things that one must be careful about, that they not sign above or to the side, rather, underneath, and the witnesses may not distance more than one line [from the text].

Since we can say that it comes for a Pashut, and explain it like we explained, we should not say that it comes for a Drashah.

Question: Nowadays, I am unsure, when a Kohen divorces his wife, if he must make a tied Get. From the enactment it connotes that he should divorce only through a tied Get;

However, since we are not very proficient about it, it is more proper to make it Pashut, which is easier;

Alternatively, Rabanan enacted only in that place.

Explanation (Ri): Rabanan enacted a Mekushar Get. It is not an obligation to do so. Rather, in order that they will not lose their wives, they enacted to do so.

Explanation #1: If you disqualify it for documents, people will come to disqualify it even for Gitin.

Explanation #2: If people will not make tied loan documents, they will cease to do so also for Gitin. Rather, since they are used to making tied [for loans], they will do so [also] for Gitin.

Implied question (against Explanation #1): We disqualify [monetary] documents with one Kusi witness [and one Yisrael], and we do not decree [to disqualify] Gitin due to [monetary] documents!

Answer: There, the reason is because witnesses on a Get sign only in front of each other. Since the Kusi signed first, this shows that he is a Chaver (properly observes Mitzvos. If not, the Yisrael would not have signed under him!)

However, witnesses on [monetary] documents may sign not in front of each other. (Since the reason to be Machshir applies only to Gitin, we do not decree one due to the other.)

Explanation: Had he said only "Achorei ha'Kesav k'Neged ha'Kesav", but not "mib'Chutz", one might have thought that k'Neged ha'Kesav is facing the text [of the document, i.e. the letters face the same direction] and Achorei ha'Kesav is above the writing; it is not below, like other signatures;

Had he said [only] "Achorei ha'Kesav mib'Chutz", one might have thought (that they may sign on the back) between knots (like Rav Huna says). Therefore he said k'Neged ha'Kesav, and not k'Neged (opposite) the knot;

Had he said [only] "mib'Chutz k'Neged ha'Kesav", one might have thought (that they may sign on the back) to the side (not directly opposite the text).

Implied question: (How could we think so?) The Mishnah says that in a Mekushar, the witnesses are Achorav (on the back)!

Answer: Between one line and another is properly called Achorav, because the witness is Achorei (above) the line below him.

Question: This is difficult also for R. Yirmeyah! Since [the witnesses] were on the back, [each signed] along the length of a line [of the text, opposite it], and [Rebbi] thought that it is a Pashut, he should have disqualified it also due to the witnesses, who were on the back, for the Mishnah teaches that if witnesses signed on the back of a Get Pashut, it is Pasul!

Suggestion: [Rebbi] did not know our Mishnah at all, for he did not know that people make a Mekushar until he heard below (from Zunin, 164b), but beforehand he did not know;

He did not even know that a Pashut is Pasul when the witnesses are on the back, for in our Mishnah we disqualify it lest he make it tied, and it will not predated;

Since he did not know anything about a Mekushar, he did not know that a Pashut is Pasul when the witnesses are on the back!

Rejection #1: We cannot say so. Firstly, it is unreasonable to say that Rebbi was not expert about laws of a Pashut;

Rejection #2: His son R. Shimon said to him "perhaps it is enveloped between the knots." How did he know? If Rebbi did not teach to him, how would R. Shimon know?

Rejection #3: Even if [you will say that] he did not know the Pesul of a Pashut whose witnesses are on the back, because a Mekushar was taught with a Pashut, and we can say that just like he did not know our Mishnah regarding a Mekushar, he did not know also regarding a Pashut...

Still, he should have known our Mishnah in Gitin (87b). It teaches there that witnesses signed at the top of the page, from the side or on back in a Get Pashut, it is Pasul!

Answer: Rebbi knew our Mishnah about Pashut and tied, but he did not that in a Mekushar, [if the king reigned] one year, we write two, until he heard from Zunin (164b);

Here he thought that they did not write between the knots any primary part of the document. Therefore, he was astounded "there is no date in this", for he did not think that it was written between the knots;

However, for R. Yirmeyah this is fine. He knew that the witnesses are on back.

Observation: We can similarly ask and answer after [Rav Chisda] answered that the witnesses are on back, according to Rav Huna.

Question: What was the question that [Rebbi] was not concerned for [not seeing] witnesses, since they are supposed to be between knots, since he knew about Mekushar documents?

Answer: [Rami bar Chama] asked "if it is true [that witness sign inside, between the places where it is tied, Rebbi] should have been adamant also about the witnesses, for they are the primary part of the document, and [the scribe] should have written them in the Pashut part. This is difficult. (Bach - Rebbi thought that normally the Toref on top is tied, and the Tofes below is Pashut. The document brought to him was Pashut above and tied below. He did not fathom that the date was written below, amidst the Tofes.)