Reference for Gittin 37:17

דההוא דעבד עובדא בשאר שטרות ונגדיה רב כהנא

it is valid. It has been stated: If a man goes over red paint writing with ink on Sabbath, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both agree that he is punishable on two counts, one for writing and one for effacing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The effacement of writing on Sabbath is an offence if it is done with the purpose of writing afresh, otherwise not. ');">¹³</span> If he goes over ink with ink or red paint with red paint, he is not punishable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he neither writes nor effaces. ');">¹⁴</span> If he goes over ink with red paint, some say he is punishable and some say he is not punishable. Some say he is punishable because he effaces [the previous writing], some say he is not punishable because he only spoils [the previous writing]. Resh Lakish inquired of R. Johanan: If witnesses are unable to sign their names, is it permissible to write the names for them in red paint and let them go over in ink? Does the upper writing count as writing or not? — He replied: It does not count as writing. But, said he, has not your honour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'our master'. ');">¹⁵</span> taught us that in respect of Sabbath observance the upper writing is counted as writing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When ink is written over red paint. ');">¹⁶</span> — He replied: Because we have a certain idea, shall we base our practice upon it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., shall we go so far as to permit a doubtful action on Sabbath, or similarly count such a signature as valid in the case of a Get? ');">¹⁷</span> It has been stated: If the witnesses are unable to sign their names, Rab says that incisions are made for them on the sheet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], a leaf of white papyrus. v, however Krauss, op. cit. III, pp. 146ff.] ');">¹⁸</span> which they fill in with ink, and Samuel says that a copy is made with lead. 'With lead'? How can this be, seeing that R. Hiyya has taught that if the Get is written with lead, with black pigment or with coal it is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore lead counts as writing, and so if it is gone over in ink, we have writing on top of writing, which is not permissible. ');">¹⁹</span> — There is no contradiction; the one case speaks of lead, the other of water in which lead has been soaked. R. Abbahu said that the copy is made with water in which ground gall-nuts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] juice made from the rind of the ash-tree ([G]), a popular writing material prepared by the Romans, v. Kraus, op. cit. III, 148.] ');">²⁰</span> have been soaked. But has not R. Hanina taught that if the Get is written with juice of wine-lees or of gall-nuts it is valid? — There is no contradiction: in the one case the sheet has been prepared with gall-nut juice, in the other not; gall-nut water does not show on gall-nut water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore where the sheet has been prepared with gall-nut juice, it is permissible to make a copy with gall-nut water. ');">²¹</span> R. Papa says [that the copy may be made] with spittle, and so R. Papa actually showed Papa the cattle dealer. All this applies only to writs of divorce, but not to other documents;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which it is necessary to find witnesses who can sign their names. ');">²²</span> for a man who actually did this with another document was ordered by R. Kahana to be flogged.

Explore reference for Gittin 37:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.