(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Chamishah she'Kasvu Klal' in our Mishnah to mean that one date covered all five Shtaros, and 'Tofeis l'Chol Echad v'Echad', that each Get was dated independently. According to Reish Lakish, even the former case is considered Tofeis. Then how does he explain 'Klal'?
(b)What does the Beraisa say about witnesses who signed after a greeting on the Get?
(c)To answer Rebbi Aba's Kashya why we are not worried that, according to our Mishnah too, maybe the witnesses signed only on the last of the five Gitin, we cite Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself. What did Rebbi Avahu say (to validate the signatures of witnesses who signed after a greeting)?
(d)How does this resolve our problem?
1)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Chamishah she'Kasvu Klal' in our Mishnah to mean that one date covered all five Shtaros, and 'Tofeis l'Chol Echad v'Echad', that each Get was dated independently. According to Reish Lakish, who considers even the former case to be Tofeis, defines 'Klal' as when they listed first all the men and then the women (i.e. 'Ploni u'Ploni ... Girshu Plonis u'Plonis').
(b)The Beraisa says that if witnesses signed after a greeting on the Get the Get is Pasul, because we are afraid that they signed on the greeting rather than on the Get.
(c)To answer Rebbi Aba's Kashya why we are not worried that, according to our Mishnah too, maybe the witnesses signed only on the last of the five Gitin, we cite Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself who said that as long as the wording on the Get was 've'Sha'alu bi'Sh'lom ... ' ('and not just 'Sha'alu ... ') it is clear that this is no more than a clause, and that the witnesses will therefore have signed on the entire Get.
(d)This also resolves our problem because the Tana of our Mishnah too, speaks when he wrote 'Ploni u'Ploni (and not just 'Ploni').
2)
(a)Mar Keshisha Rav Chisda's son, asked Rav Ashi why it is that, if each Get is dated independently, the first four Gitin are not Pasul anyway, because they were signed at a later date than they were written. What did Rav Ashi reply?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk "v'Kasav Lah"?
(c)What did Rav Ashi reply, when Ravina asked him ...
1. ... why it is that, according to Reish Lakish, who requires each couple to be mentioned independently, all five Gitin should not be Pasul even in the case of Klal, because of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta'?
2. ... how, in light of the Psul of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta', we justify the Beraisa 'ha'Kosev Nechasav li'Shnei Avadav, Kanu u'Meshachr'rin Zeh Es Zeh' (in spite of the Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah", comparing Eved to Ishah). What did Rav Ashi reply?
2)
(a)Mar Keshisha Rav Chisda's son asked Rav Ashi why it is that, if each Get is dated independently, the first four Gitin are not Pasul anyway, because they were signed at a later date than they were written. Rav Ashi replied that our Mishnah speaks when all five Gitin were contained the same date.
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Kasav Lah" that one Get cannot cover two divorces ("Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta').
(c)When Ravina asked Rav Ashi ...
1. ... why it is that, according to Reish Lakish, who requires the men and the women to be listed independently ('Ploni u'Ploni Gerashnu Plonis u'Plonis'), all five Gitin should not be Pasul even in the case of Klal, because of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta', he replied that the Mishnah must be speaking when he then listed them couple by couple, adding 'Ploni Giresh Plonis, u'Ploni Giresh Plonis'.
2. ... how, in light of the Psul of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta', we justify the Beraisa 'ha'Kosev Nechasav li'Shnei Avadav, Kanu u'Meshachrerin Zeh Es Zeh' (in spite of the Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" comparing Eved to Ishah Rav Ashi reminded him that we already established the Beraisa by two independent Shtaros.
3)
(a)In the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, which of the two enjoys the support of a Beraisa?
(b)In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira disagrees with the Tana Kama. How does he qualify the case where each Get has its own date?
(c)In the Beraisa that supports Reish Lakish ...
1. ... the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira. Who is the Tana Kama's disputant?
2. ... why does the Tana need to explain that he wrote the date on each of the five Gitin, seeing as Reish Lakish invalidates five Gitin in one Shtar even if there is only one date?
3)
(a)In the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both enjoy the support of a Beraisa.
(b)In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira disagrees with the Tana Kama. He restricts the Psul there to where there is a space between one Get and the next, but where there is no space, all the Gitin are Kosher.
(c)In the Beraisa that supports Reish Lakish ...
1. ... the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira. His disputant is Rebbi Meir (who maintains that the date is automatically an interruption between the Shtar and the signatures).
2. ... the Tana needs to explain that the Sofer wrote the date on each of the five Gitin because he is speaking when he had previously listed the couples together, in the way that we explained earlier, whereas Reish Lakish, who invalidates five Gitin in one Shtar even if there is only one date, is speaking when he did not do that.
4)
(a)What is the difference between the way an Ivri (Jews living elsewhere) signs his name on the Get and the way a Greek Jew signs it?
(b)If, in a case where two documents are written side by side on one piece of parchment, two Ivrim sign across the page, and underneath them, two Greek Jews sign, which of the Shtaros does our Mishnah validate?
(c)If an Ivri signs first, then a Greek, then an Ivri and then a Greek, the Tana declares both Shtaros invalid. How exactly, did the two Greeks sign?
4)
(a)The difference between the way an Ivri (a Jew living elsewhere) signs his name on the Get and the way a Greek Jew signs it is that the former (whom we shall call Yosef and his father's Shimon), will sign his name Yosef ben Shimon, whereas the latter will sign it Shimon ben Yosef (meaning 'the son of Shimon is Yosef').
(b)If, in a case where two documents are written side by side on one piece of parchment, two Ivrim sign across the page from one side to the other, and two Greek Jews sign the opposite way, our Mishnah validates whichever Shtar is undersigned by the first pair of names (the right-hand Shtar, if the Ivrim signed first, the left-hand one, if the Greeks signed first assuming they signed in Lashon ha'Kodesh).
(c)If an Ivri signs first, then a Greek, then an Ivri and then a Greek, the Tana declares both Shtaros invalid. Each of the two Greeks signed his first name at the end of the line, directly underneath the second name of the Ivri above him, and 'ben' and the second name at the beginning of the next line, underneath the first name of the Ivri (in which case, we would have expected the Shtar to be Kosher).
5)
(a)What if someone signs his name as 'ben Ploni'?
(b)If that is so, why, in the latter case in our Mishnah, do we not consider the top signature as two (i.e. 'Reuven' on the right, and 'ben Yakov' on the left, to combine with the signatures beneath them)?
5)
(a)If someone signs his name as 'ben Ploni' his signature is valid.
(b)in spite of that, in the latter case in our Mishnah, we do not consider the top signature as two, 'Reuven' on the right, 'ben Yakov' on the left, to combine with the signature beneath them because the Tana speaks when he signed 'Reuven ben' on the right, 'Yakov' on the left, and 'Yakov' on its own is not a valid signature.
6)
(a)On what grounds is a Shtar Kosher if one of the signatories signed 'Reuven ben'?
(b)Then why in the Reisha of our Mishnah, is only the one Shtar Kosher, and not both, by considering 'Reuven ben' as a witness on the right-hand Shtar, and 'Yakov Ed', as a witness on the left-hand one (and likewise in the case of the second witness)?
(c)On what condition might the Shtar be Pasul even if he did sign 'Yakov Ed'?
(d)How do we know that it was not Reuven who signed on the left-hand Shtar too, but using his father's name?
6)
(a)A Shtar is Kosher if one of the signatories signed 'Reuven ben' on the grounds that what he means is 'Ani Beno Shel Reuven'.
(b)And the reason that, in the Reisha of our Mishnah, only the one Shtar is Kosher, and not both (by considering 'Reuven ben' as a witness on the right-hand Shtar, and 'Yakov Ed', as a witness on the left-hand one and likewise in the case of the second witness) is because it speaks when the signature that signed on the left of the Get (i.e. 'Yakov') is not followed by 'Ed'.
(c)The Shtar will be Pasul even if he did sign 'Yakov Ed' in a case where we know that this is simply not Yakov's signature.
(d)We know that it was not Reuven who signed on the left-hand Shtar too, but using his father's name because a person does not use his father's name when he can use his own.
87b----------------------------------------87b
7)
(a)Rav used to sign his name with the symbol of a fish, Rebbi Chanina with that of a branch of a date-palm. What symbol was used by ...
1. ... Rav Chisda?
2. ... Rav Hoshaya?
(b)Rabah bar Rav Huna did not use a letter like the previous two Amora'im, but a symbol like the first two. Which symbol?
(c)Then how do we know that Reuven in the Seifa of our Mishnah, did not use his father's name 'Yakov' as a symbol?
7)
(a)Rav used to sign his name with the symbol of a fish, Rebbi Chanina with that of a branch of a date-palm. The symbol used by ...
1. ... Rav Chisda was 'a Samech', and by ...
2. ... Rav Hoshaya 'an Ayin' (letters from their respective names).
(b)Rabah bar Rav Huna did not use a letter like the previous two Amora'im, but a symbol like the first two a ship's mast.
(c)We know that Reuven in the Seifa of our Mishnah, did not use his father's name 'Yakov' as a symbol because people do not have the Chutzpah to use their parents names as symbols.
8)
(a)We prove that the reason in the Seifa of our Mishnah (that not both of the Gitin are Kosher - the right-hand one, by means of the Ivri witnesses, the left-hand one, by means of the Greek ones) cannot be because of the space between the left-hand Shtar and the Greek witnesses, because of a statement by Chizkiyah. What did Chizkiyah say about a Shtar whose space one filled with witnesses who are relatives?
(b)What does this prove?
(c)How does Ze'iri therefore amend our Mishnah 'Sheneihem Pesulim'?
(d)We nevertheless reconcile our Mishnah with Chizkiyah by suggesting that perhaps they signed Gundelis. What does 'Gundelis' mean?
8)
(a)We prove that the reason in the Seifa of our Mishnah (that not both Gitin are Kosher the right-hand one, by means of the Ivri witnesses, the left-hand one, by means of the Greek ones) cannot be because of the space between the left-hand Shtar and the Greek witnesses, because of Chizkiyah, who ruled that a Shtar whose space one filled with witnesses who are relatives is Kosher (despite the space between the contents of the Shtar and the Kosher witnesses.
(b)This proves that a space between the Shtar and the Kosher witnesses does not matter as long as it is filled-in.
(c)Ze'iri therefore amends 'Sheneihem Pesulim' in our Mishnah to read -'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.
9)
(a)Notwithstanding their different methods of signing, what is the status of a Shtar that is signed by an Ivri and a Greek Jew?
(b)Ze'iri cites a Beraisa which reconciles our Mishnah (which rules 'Sheneihem Pesulim') with this ruling. What does the Beraisa say?
(c)Our Tana however, specifically rules that the second Get is Pasul. Why is that?
(d)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the Seifa of our Mishnah speaks when all four witnesses signed across the line?
9)
(a)Notwithstanding their different methods of signing a Shtar that is signed by an Ivri and a Greek Jew is Kosher.
(b)Ze'iri cites a Beraisa which reconciles our Mishnah (which rules 'Sheneihem Pesulim') with this ruling. The Beraisa says 'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.
(c)Our Tana however, specifically rules that the second Get is Pasul because he suspects that perhaps one of the two Greek witnesses signed 'Gund'lis', as we explained earlier (i.e. either the first one took his cue from the first Ivri witness, to sign his own name first [but on the second column], or the second one took his cue from the previous Ivri witnesses [signing his own name first]), leaving us with three witnesses on the second Shtar and only one on the second, or vice-versa, respectively .
(d)We refute the suggestion that the Seifa of our Mishnah speaks when all four witnesses signed across the line because then, there would not be an Ivri witness on the second Get (and it is clear from both the Mishnah and from the Sugya that there is).
10)
(a)Our Mishnah validates a Get which is written in two columns (which is dated at the beginning of the first column and signed at the end of the second). Why are we not afraid ...
1. ... that the two columns may have actually contained two Gitin that were not originally written on the same level (i.e. the first Get was written higher up than the second), and that he cut off the signatures from the foot of the first Get and the date from the top of the second one?
2. ... that he changed his mind about the text of the Get and scrapped the first column, to begin afresh with a new date on the second, which he then cut off to make it appear like one Get?
3. ... that after beginning the Get on the first column, he changed his mind about divorcing his wife, and then reconsidered and continued with the Get on the second column?
(b)What two reasons might there be for invalidating the Get in the previous 'Havah Amina' (the contention that he changed his mind about giving a Get after the first column)?
(c)Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah when it is evident from the appearance of the Shtar (by the standard thickness of the parchment) that neither column has been cut. What does he gain by saying that?
10)
(a)Our Mishnah validates a Get which is written in two columns, which is dated at the beginning of the first column and signed at the end of the second. We are not afraid ...
1. ... that the two columns may have actually contained two Gitin that were not originally written on the same level (i.e. the first Get was written higher up than the second), and that someone cut off the signatures from the foot of the first Get and the date from the top of the second one is because the Tana is speaking when there is a space at the foot of the first column (proving that it is still intact).
2. ... that he changed his mind about the text of the Get and scrapped the first column, began afresh with a new date on the second, which he then cut off to make it appear like one Get because the Tana is speaking when there is also a space at the top of the second column, proving that it too, is still intact.
3. ... that after beginning the Get on the first column, he changed his mind about divorcing his wife, and then reconsidered and continued with the Get on the second column because the first column ends with 'Harei At', and the second begins with 'Muteres' (indicating that the second column is a continuation of the first, and that he did not retract from the first column, because a person would not retract in the middle of a phrase).
(b)The two reasons for invalidating the Get in the previous 'Havah Amina' (the contention that he changed his mind about giving a Get after the first column) are either because, having changed his mind about giving his wife a Get, what he wrote to date would then be Batel, or because it was then not written on the same day as it was signed.
(c)Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah when it is evident from the appearance of the Shtar (by the standard thickness of the parchment) that neither column has been cut. By doing so he eliminates all three problems in one sweep.
11)
(a)Will a regular Get (to preclude a Get Mekushar where the witnesses have to sign on the back) be Kosher if the witnesses signed on top of the page, at the side or at the back?
(b)What does our Mishnah say about two Gitin that are written one above the other, but one facing upwards and the other downwards, where the witnesses signed on the space in between ...
1. ... if the two beginnings are facing each other?
2. ... if the two ends are facing each other?
11)
(a)If the witnesses signed on top of the page, at the side or at the back of a regular Get (to preclude a Get Mekushar where the witnesses had to sign on the back) it is Pasul.
(b)Our Mishnah rules that if two Gitin are written one above the other, but one facing upwards and the other downwards, and the witnesses signed on the space in between ...
1. ... if the two beginnings are facing each other both Gitin are Pasul (seeing as the set of signatures does not pertain to either Shtar).
2. ... if the two ends are facing each other then the one with which the witnesses' signatures coincides is Kosher.
12)
(a)What does our Mishnah rule in a case where ...
1. ... a Get is written in Ivris but the witnesses signed in Greek?
2. ... the Sofer wrote it and one witness signed it?
(b)Is a Get Kosher if the witnesses signed ...
1. ... 'Ish Ploni Ed' (omitting the father's name, which is generally inserted)?
2. ... 'ben Ish Ploni Ed'?
3. ... 'Ish Ploni ben Ish Ploni'?
(c)How did the Neki'ei ha'Da'as in Yerushalayim used to sign on documents? What does 'Neki'ei ha'Da'as' mean?
(d)What does the Tana say about writing just the family nickname of the man and woman, together with their main name?
12)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that, in a case where ...
1. ... a Get is written in Ivris but the witnesses signed in Greek it is Kosher.
2. ... the Sofer wrote the Get and one witness signed it is Kosher (this will be explained later in the Sugya).
(b)If the witnesses signed ...
1. ... 'Ish Ploni Ed' (omitting the father's name, which is generally inserted) the Get is nevertheless Kosher ...
2. ... 'ben Ish Ploni Ed', or ...
3. ... 'Ish Ploni ben Ish Ploni' the Get is Kosher.
(c)The Neki'ei ha'Da'as (people who would speak concisely) in Yerushalayim used to sign on documents 'Ish Ploni ben Ish Ploni'.
(d)The Tana rules that if just the family nickname of the man and woman are written in the Get, together with their main names it is nonetheless Kosher.
