(Mishnah): One who writes two letters in one Helam, using [black] ink, Sam, Sikra (kinds of red dye), sap, vitriol or anything that marks [is liable]

If he wrote on two walls that meet in a corner, or on two tablets that can be read together, he is liable;

One who writes on his skin is liable.

R. Eliezer says, if he scratched on his skin he is Chayav Chatas;

Chachamim exempt.

(Gemara): If he wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, or with fruit juice on a tablet, he is exempt, until he writes with something that lasts on something that lasts.

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yosah citing R. Elazar): If one wrote one letter in Tiverya, and one in Tzipori, he is liable.

Question (the coming Mishnah): If they cannot be read together, he is exempt.

(R. Ba bar Mamal): [Sam and Sikra in our Mishnah are] Sardah (a red dye, like Ibn Ezra explained b'Sered (Yechezkel 44:13) - PNEI MEIR.)

(Reish Lakish): If witnesses do not know how to sign their names [on a Get], we mark their names in [black] ink, and they write over this in red dye, or [we write in] red dye, and they write over this in ink.

Objection (R. Yochanan): Because we engage in laws of Shabbos [and posit that one is liable for writing in red dye over ink, or vice-versa, will we assert that this is called writing,] and permit a married woman?!

Rather, we bring a blank paper, and tear [out letters to make a stencil of their names] before them, [and put the paper over the Get, and they sign [through putting ink in the holes in the stencil).

Question: Is this not the handwriting of the first (the one who made the stencil? How is this a valid signature of the witnesses?!)

Answer: The first one widens the tears. (The witnesses do not fill them in. They merely write thin letters within the tears, so we can recognize their writing style. We explained this like TOSFOS Gitin 9b.)

Question (R. Mana): Why don't we say to mark [their names] in front of them in water [and they will overwrite it with ink]?

Answer: [If we would do so, and the husband] comes and protests (says that the witnesses' signatures are invalid, for it is writing over writing, people will think that) his protest is a protest (PNEI MEIR).

One who tears on hide (PNEI MOSHE) like the form of writing, he is liable. One who marks on hide like the form of writing, he is exempt.

(In our Mishnah, R. Eliezer obligates one who scratched on his skin, and Chachamim exempt.) R. Eliezer said to them "Ben Stada brought witchcraft from Mitzrayim only in this way!'' (This shows that it is normal!)

Rabanan: Due to one lunatic, will we eradicate (execute) many intelligent people [who do so]?!

[He will] write [a Get], and not carve out. [He will] write, and not drip [dots of ink or lead to form letters]. [He will] write, and not pour.

[He will] write, and not carve - some teach that he may even carve out.

(Rav Chisda): The one who says that he may not carve [discusses when] the place of the letters sticks out, like coins. (He carves out and leaves the shapes of the letters.) The one who says that he may even carve [discusses] like these tablets (into which one etches letters).

[He will] write, and not drip. R. Yudan bei R. Shalom and R. Matanyah - one of them said that this is when he did not connect the drops [via a quill, but if he connected them, it is valid]. One of them said that this is even when he connected the drops.

Write, and not pour. R. Chiya bar Ba said, these people of the east are very crafty. When one of them wants to send a secret message to his friend, he writes in Mei Milin (water in which Afatzim, i.e. gall-nuts or acorns were soaked. It cannot be seen on paper that was treated with gall-nuts.) The one who receives the writing spills on it ink without Afatzim, and [the ink] absorbs [the Mei Milin in] the place of the writing, [and it appears different, so the message can be read. If a Get was written in this way, it is invalid.]

Question: If one did so on Shabbos, what is the law?

Answer: [The coming Mishnah says that] there is no [liability for] writing on top of writing. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish said, this is if he wrote [black] ink on top of ink, or red dye on top of red dye, but if he wrote ink on top of red dye, or red dye on top of ink, he is liable. (All the more so one who pours is liable, for the first writing was not visible at all - PNEI MEIR.)

(R. Yitzchak bar Mesharshiya citing Rabanan of there (Bavel)): He is liable twice - for erasing and for writing.

(Mishnah): If he wrote with [other] liquids, fruit juice, mud (alternatively - in dry earth), dust of residue left in an inkwell, or anything that does not last, he is exempt [and likewise in the coming cases];

He wrote [holding the quill] with the back of his hand, or with his foot, mouth or elbow;

He wrote one letter next to a letter that was already written. He wrote [letters] on top of letters that were already written;

He intended to write a Ches and he [omitted the roof connecting them, and thereby] wrote the letter Zayin twice;

He wrote one letter on the floor and one on a ceiling beam. He wrote on two walls or in two columns of a tablet that cannot be read together. [In all of these cases] he is exempt.

If he wrote one letter Notrikun (with a mark showing that it represents a word) R. Yehudah ben Beseira is Mechayev, and Chachamim exempt.

(Gemara): If [one was writing a Sefer Torah, and] he needed to write Hash-m's name, and he intended to write Yehudah, and he forgot and did not write the Dalet, so Hash-m's name is in its place, he erases it and writes it again in Kedushah;

R. Yehudah says, [he does not erase it]. He passes the quill over it and writes it again and is Mekadesh it.

Chachamim [to R. Yehudah]: This is not a choice [writing of Hash-m's name].

Question: Rabanan contradict themselves! There, they say that it is not a choice writing. This implies that it is writing. Here (in our Mishnah), they say that writing over writing is not considered writing!

Answer #1: They countered R. Yehudah according to his opinion. According to you, who say that it is writing, it is not a choice writing.

R. Yakov bar Zavdi did not say so. Rather, R. Yehudah contradicts himself!

Question: There, he says [that writing over writing] is not considered writing (i.e. our Stam Mishnah says so, and he does not argue), and here [regarding Get] he says that it is writing! (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.)

Answer (and Answer #2 to the previous question): [All agree that passing the quill over the letters is writing.] What is writing over writing [in our Mishnah]? It is one [letter] above another.

What is the reason of R. Yehudah ben Beseira [who obligates for writing one letter Notrikun]? From one letter you learn several letters.