Explanation: And all the more so a bigger [erasure disqualifies], for he can erase two or three lines in order to scheme and write what he wants, and later write Sharir v'Kayam. Therefore [an erasure] is Pasul anywhere that we can say that here it can be that Sharir v'Kayam was written;

However, less than Sharir v'Kayam there is nothing to be concerned for.

Explanation: However, if he did not sign witnesses (opposite what he added), it is Pasul, for the signatures must be opposite the end of the document;

We cannot say that he will make dots on the other side (under the text), for perhaps they will make the Kiyum there.

Explanation: He will validate it through three [valid] witnesses above, for we validate from any three, like we say in Gitin (81b).

Implied question: Why can't we answer like (but oppositely to) below (163b, and say here) that we validate only through witnesses below?

[The Gemara there] asks "we should be concerned lest he wrote [the document] and its witnesses in one line, and he says 'I wanted to add extra witnesses'", and it answers "in every such case, we validate only from the witnesses above";

Likewise, we should answer here that we validate only through the witnesses below!

Answer: We learn from our Mishnah in Gitin (81b) that we may validate from any three witnesses;

However, below (163b), that he wrote in the last line, we do not validate [from witnesses below, rather, only from the witnesses above].

Question: Both according to Rav Huna and R. Yirmeyah, our Mishnah, which teaches [that witnesses sign] in back, and [Rav Huna] explains that they sign between knots, and the other (R. Yirmeyah) explains that they sign from bottom to top, why did [Rabanan] enact like this?

Rather, they should have enacted that all sign under the last line, on the back, and they will not need Sharir v'Kayam also according to Rav Huna! (Below in DH v'Gayez, Tosfos infers that according to R. Yirmeyah, Sharir v'Kayam was not written.)

Answer: Whatever they can change from a Pashut, they change, so that not everyone will be expert to make [a Mekushar Get], so meanwhile (until the Kohen finds a scribe to write one) he will be assuaged (and retract from divorcing his wife).

Question: We do not learn from the bottom line! It recaps the matter of the document. How can he cut it? It will be Pasul if he cuts it, since there is no recap!

Answer: In a Mekushar, the custom was not to recap. They learned from the bottom line;

In a Pashut, surely they do not learn, because the witnesses sign inside, and they are not meticulous and they sign a line away from the text, and one can forge in that line, if not that we say that we do not learn;

In a Mekushar, the witnesses are on the back, from below to above. They properly sign opposite the last line.

Also now that we learn from the last line, he cannot forge on the inside, because the witnesses are not signed opposite the line that he forged.

Question: He will sign witnesses (Pesulim, or forge signatures) opposite the writing that he forged on the inside, and he will validate with the other three [Kosher] witnesses!

Answer #1: In one line [of signatures going from below to above] only one witness signs. If he himself will sign a second witness, it is Pasul.

Answer #2: The witnesses who signed first, they made dots in the lower margin of the document on the back (before their signatures), lest someone come afterwards and write a document in that margin and obligate the witness, for this is his signature (it "proves" that he admitted to what was written).

Question: According to R. Chanina ben Gamliel, a Mekushar whose witnesses are inside, how can he make it Pashut? In a Pashut there is a recap of the document, and in a Mekushar, there is not. If so, when he makes it Pashut and they will not see a recap of the document, they will disqualify it!

Answer: You are forced to say that the case of R. Chanina ben Gamliel discuss a Mekushar that recaps, since the witnesses are inside. (If they would not recap, the bearer could forge an additional line in the document.)

Inference: If so, according to R. Yirmeyah, Sharir v'Kayam was not written in a Mekushar;

If it were written, how could he cut [the last line? People] will not see Sharir v'Kayam, and they will disqualify [the document]!

According to Rav Huna, it was written, like we answered above (160b), but in a Pashut, both according to [Rav Huna] and [R. Yirmeyah], Sharir v'Kayam was not written in their Pashut documents.

Explanation: Reuven [and] Ben are written in the last line, i.e. b'Chad Dara, and afterwards Yakov Ed along the length of the document. (I.e. Reuven begins opposite the last line, and it reads going towards the top of the document, and also Ben (written under Reuven) begins opposite the last line. Yakov is written after Reuven, and Ed is after Ben, and both of them begin together, e.g. opposite the line of the document second or third from the bottom.)

Explanation (Rivam): If "Ben" (written under "Reuven") were written even with the beginning of "Reuven", and afterwards Yakov, he could cut the last line until (i.e. including) "Reu" of Reuven, with "Ben" underneath, and will remain "Ben Yakov".

Note: The Bach says that the rest of this Dibur is a comment. Below, Tosfos brings Rivam's Perush (according to the Bach and Pnei Shlomo, unlike the Maharsha).

Comment: The Rivam's question is when we explain that Yakov and Reuven are [written] in one line along the length of the document, and "Ben" is (in another line) under the start of "Reuven", and it is Kosher like this;

Source #1: If it were not Kosher like this, if so, also when Ben is above (with Reuven), and Yakov Ed is below, it would not be Kosher. What forced [Rivam] to answer that "Ben" is as big as [the entire word] Reuven?

He should say that the explanation is that Reuven is above, and Ben Yakov is below. Now, there is no concern for anything!

Source #2: Also, why did the Gemara answer that "Ed" is not written? It should answer that he wrote Ed, and the case is, Ben Yakov is below, and a little of Yakov is below Reuven, like [Rivam] explained!

Source #3: Also, now what Rivam asked below would not be difficult at all, that Reuven ben Yakov Ed is Pasul in a Mekushar, and Yakov Ed alone is Kosher;

Rather, surely he could not answer so, for even when Reuven is above, and Ben Yakov is below, and a little of Yakov is below Reuven, he will cut the last line with Reu and with Ben underneath, and it will be Kosher through Ben above and Yakov below;

This is unlike those who err, and say that it is not Kosher like this. This is wrong due to loads of proper refutations that we explained. One should not ascribe this to [Rivam's] words, for his mistake (one who explains Rivam like this) is considered Mezid (like it says in Avos 4:13 about a Chacham who errs).

Conclusion: Rather, [Rivam] must explain that "Ben" was exceedingly big, and occupied as much place as the entire name Reuven above it, and after [Ben] it says Yakov. Now, he can cut only Reuven with "Ben", and only Yakov Ed will remain.

Support: Now it is fine that [the Gemara] asked "perhaps he will cut off 'Reuven ben', and it will be Kosher through 'Yakov Ed'";

Implied question: Why couldn't it answer that Ben is below the beginning of Reuven, and a little of Yakov is below Reuven, and now he cannot cut Reuven without [cutting also] a little of Yakov?

Answer: It could not answer so, like I explained, for he could cut off 'Reu' and 'Ben' underneath, and will remain 'Ben' from Reuven, and also Yakov, and it will be Kosher through this.

Conclusion: Rather, Ben is even with all of Reuven, or 'Ben' is under 'Ben' from the name Reuven, and if he cuts 'Reu', two 'Ben's will remain one under the other, and Yakov after Reuven.

Citation: These are the words of Rivam. Reuven Ben is in one line, and Yakov is above (e.g. it begins opposite the second or third line from the bottom);

He must write Ben under the Ben of the name Reuven. Now, if he cuts off Reu, two 'Ben's will remain one under the other, and Yakov after Reuven.

If he would begin to write even with the beginning of Reuven, underneath it, Ben even with Reu, and it turns out Ben of Reuven itself sticks out past [the end of the word below it, i.e.] Ben;

He could cut Reu of Reuven, and also Ben below Reu with it, and Ben from Reuven would remain, and it would be difficult like initially (before this answer that he writes Reuven Ben in one line)!

However, now that he writes Ben below even with the top Ben from Reuven, there would remain one Ben below and one above, and it would be evident the fiasco that he did.

Even if he will erase the [Ben] below, the erasure will be evident, and Beis Din will know what he did.

Citation: (cont.): Alternatively, he must write Ben in big letters, so it will occupy the entire width of Reuven, underneath it.

Support: This [latter solution] is primary, for now it will be more even [if he cuts].

Observation: Concern for this [fraud] applies only to Reuven, but not to other names.

Question: How is it Kosher? We know that Yakov did not sign this! What did this opinion think? (Maharsha - the lender knows that Yakov did not sign it. He would not cut off Reuven ben, for then he will not be able to validate the document!)

Granted, the case in the Mishnah there (Gitin 87a) to two Gitin written side by side, the one that the first witnesses are read with it (their signatures start on the side it is written) is Kosher... (There are two Ivri witnesses underneath, and two Greek witnesses (Yehudim, but they sign from left to right).)

The Gemara asks "this [Get] should be Kosher through Reuven Ben (the first half of Reuven ben Yakov's signature), and this should be Kosher through Yakov Ed!" This is fine, like I will explain later (in this Dibur, on Amud B). However, here, how is it Kosher? (Obviously, each Get needs two witnesses. We assume that likewise, the second signature includes testimony about each Get.)

Suggestion: [It is Kosher here] through Greek signatures. They sign their father's name first, and we can say that this Yakov that remains here [after cutting], he is the witness. The Perush [of his signature] is "Reuven is his son - Yakov."

Rebuttal: This is difficult. If so, it should have said "like a Greek signature"! (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Answer: [The Gemara] asks as follows. We should be concerned lest he cut "Reuven Ben", and it will be Kosher through Yakov Ed, and the borrower will think that he did not forge, and the witnesses are like they wrote (signed) for him;

As long as the borrower does not obligate him to validate it, we will not [try to] validate it;

And if we do not claim for orphans and one who bought from the borrower that [perhaps] it was forged, this is fine. Without any forgetting (i.e. we need not say that the borrower forgot who signed it, through his fraud the lender) will take from them.

Explanation: Let us return to the Mishnah in Gitin (87a). If two Gitin were written side by side, the one that the first witnesses are read with it is Kosher...

The Gemara asks "this [Get] should be Kosher through Reuven, and this should be Kosher through Ben Yakov Ed, for a Mishnah teaches that 'Ben Ish Ploni Ed' is Kosher!" (This was the first question asked there. Above (Amud A), Tosfos cited the second question asked there.)

Inference: Now it connotes that it is obvious that the first [signature] is Kosher through "Reuven" alone, since we do not bring a proof that [such a signature] is Kosher, like we brought for "Ben Yakov Ed."

Question #1: It is not Kosher through "Reuven" alone!

Question #2: After the Gemara answered that "Reuven Ben" is written under the first [Get], and "Yakov Ed" under the second, the Gemara asks "this should be Kosher through Reuven Ben, and this should be Kosher through Yakov Ed, for a Mishnah teaches that 'Ish Ploni Ed' is Kosher!"

Also now, why is it obvious [to the Makshan] that the first is Kosher through Reuven Ben alone?

Answer #1 (Rashi): Reuven Ben is Kosher, for it connotes "I am the son of Reuven", the way Greeks sign. It is like "Ben Ish Ploni." And the other [Get] is Kosher through Yakov Ed. It is a different witness, whose name is Yakov.

Rebuttal #1: Why should we say that Reuven Ben is a Greek, since he wrote in Ivri (Leshon ha'Kodesh)?

Rebuttal #2: Even if he is a Greek, and it is like "Ben Ploni", it is not Kosher, since he did not write "Ed"!

Rebuttal #3: This does not answer Question #1!

Answer #2: Initially, the Gemara asked "this should be Kosher through Reuven, and this through Ben Yakov Ed!" I.e. Reuven intended to testify about two Gitin, and he wrote on the bottom one (i.e. the left Get, which follows the right Get) Ben Yakov Ed, and it is Kosher through this, like a Mishnah teaches that 'Ish Ploni Ed' is Kosher;

He also signed his name Reuven on the first, and it is Kosher through this, like the Mishnah teaches "the one that the [first] witnesses are read with it is Kosher. With the first, [his signature] is read Reuven Ben Ed, for "Reuven" pertains to Ben Yakov Ed, and it is obvious that it is Kosher. Therefore, he did not bring a proof to be Machshir [this];

[The Gemara] answers that Reuven Ben applies to the first, and Yakov Ed to the second. Now we know that this Yakov on the latter, Reuven did not sign it, for one would not sign his father's name.

The Gemara asks "this [Get] should be Kosher through Reuven Ben, and this through Yakov Ed, like a Mishnah teaches that 'Ish Ploni Ed' is Kosher!" I.e. we should say that Yakov signed the latter "Yakov Ed", and through this it is Kosher;

And afterwards his son Reuven came and signed on the first Reuven Ben, and he thought that the signature Yakov Ed is read with his [signature], and it is Kosher through this, like the Mishnah says, the one that the [first] witnesses are read with it is Kosher.

[The Gemara] answers that he did not write "Ed". Now, surely Yakov did not sign on the second, for he did not write "Ed"!

[The Gemara] answers that alternatively, he wrote "Ed", and we know that this signature is not of Yakov.

Inference: Had he written Reuven Ben Yakov Ed, it would be Pasul.

Question: This is difficult, that we disqualify Ploni Ben Ish Ploni Ed, and we are Machshir Ben Ish Ploni Ed, or Ish Ploni Ed!

We do so because had he signed initially Ish Ploni Ed, it would not come to [concern for] forgery, or if Ben was above and Ploni Ed was below under it, similarly it is Kosher.

Just the contrary! We should say that if he signed initially Ish Ploni Ben Ish Ploni Ed, it should be Kosher! We should say that if the cuts the last line with Reuven who signed on it, it is Pasul, and so it should have said (that what remains, i.e. Ben Ish Ploni Ed, is Pasul)!

Answer #1: The Mishnah taught "Ben Ish Ploni Ed is Kosher, Ish Ploni Ed is Kosher", and it does not distinguish between Pashut and Mekushar. We should say that it is Kosher here. However, the Mishnah did not teach that "Ploni Ben Ploni Ed" is Kosher.

Implied question: Ploni ben Ploni is Kosher. All the more so when he wrote Ed [it is Kosher]!

Answer: Still, since the Mishnah did not explicitly teach that is Kosher, we can distinguish. In a Pashut it is Kosher, but in a Mekushar, since it can come to fraud, it is Pasul.

Answer #2: Some explain that there is more reason to be Machshir Ish Ploni Ed (than Ish Ploni Ben Ish Ploni Ed), for there are many converts without a father, and they cannot sign their father's name, only Ploni Ed.

Question: There is different, for initially he was Huchzak through (signing this symbol on) letters or responses, but here, he was not!

Answer: Even so, we should say that if one signs his father's name, perhaps this person regularly does so.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): When they sign on the back, from below to above, they must all begin [opposite] the last line, and there is only one witness signed [in each line going] along the length of the document, and they sign one under the other;

Therefore, if he cuts the last line, he cuts the beginning [of the signatures of] all the witnesses, and will remain only Ben Ploni Ed. The fraud is evident, since all the Edim are cut;

And if they sign from above to below, they must all end in the last line.

Rebuttal: We seek to answer even if he wrote "Ed". If so, when they sign from above to below, and all end in the last line, and he cuts the last line, he cuts with it "Ed" from all the signatures!

Explanation #2 (Riva): Really, they are signed in [the normal] order (along the width of the document);

Implied question: Perhaps he will forge on the front and sign [more witnesses] on the back, and say that he did so to add witnesses!

Answer: It will be Pasul, for any Mekushar whose witnesses do not finish in one line, i.e. the last line, is Pasul. Therefore, since all the witnesses are signed in the last line, it will not come to forgery;

He cannot sign [more witnesses] on the back, since all of them must be in one line, and [opposite] the last line.

Question: It says in the Yerushalmi that in a Mekushar, they sign along the length of the document!

Explanation #3: Any Mekushar whose witnesses do not finish in one line is Pasul, i.e. he signs Reuven [opposite] the last line, and under it Ben, and under [Ben] Yakov, and under [Yakov] Ed, and similarly all the witnesses;

Therefore, if he cuts the last line, he will cut all the signatures.

Alternative text: In R. Chananel's Perush, the text does not say v'Dein (these are). Rather, if a matter was erased, and afterwards he wrote on the erasure, he must write at the end of the document "the words Ploni are on the Mechak (erasure)."

Remark: Even according to our Seforim, in which the text says v'Dein, it is not difficult at all if it does not say v'Dein, for this is a mere embellishment of the document (to remove any possible allegations). Also, we write Sharir v'Kayam [which helps like v'Dein].

Question: If a document comes in front of us, and the witnesses are distanced one line from [the text of] the document, and it did not recap the matter of the document in the last line, it should be Kosher. What concern should we have?

Suggestion: [The bearer] could have forged in the blank line.

Rejection: We do not learn from the last line!

Assertion: We need not be concerned lest [the witnesses] left two blank lines, and the lender forged [what is now the last line. Tosfos did not give the reason. Perhaps we assume that witnesses know not do so, for one could cut off the top and forge a document in two lines. Also, if the bearer is a swindler, and he left the last line blank because he knows that we do not learn from it, he would have recapped the document in it, so it would appear totally Kosher!]