Gittin 173

אפילו זמן אחד לכולן נמי הוי טופס אלא היכי דמי כלל דכתב אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית

: Even if there is one date for all it is still called a formula [Get],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And only the last one is valid, because this separates all the others from the signatures. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה רבי אבא לר' יוחנן דאמר זמן אחד לכולן זהו כלל ליחוש דלמא כי חתמו סהדי אבתרא הוא דחתימי מי לא תניא עדים חתומין על שאילת שלום בגט פסול חיישינן שמא על שאילת שלום חתמו

and a 'joint' [Get] is where he writes 'We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the signatures can apply to all. ');">²</span>

לאו איתמר עלה א"ר אבהו לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן שאלו פסול ושאלו כשר ה"נ דכתיב ביה פלוני ופלוני ופלוני

R. Abba strongly demurred to this. If we accept the view of R. Johanan, he said, that a 'joint' [Get] is one where there is the same date for all, have we not to consider the possibility that when the witnesses sign they are attesting only the last? Has it not been taught: 'If witnesses subscribe to an expression of kind regards in a Get, [the Get] is invalid, since we apprehend that they may have attested the expression of kind regards'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not to the Get itself, v, B. B. 176a. ');">³</span>

ותו לרבי יוחנן דאמר זמן לכל אחד זהו טופס מאי איריא משום טופס ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה

— Has it not been stated in connection with this: R. Abbahu said: It was explained to me by R. Johanan that if it is written 'they gave him greeting,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they inquired (of his welfare)'. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבי יוחנן דכתיב בהו בחד בשבא בחד בשבא

it is invalid, but if 'and they gave', it is valid? So here we suppose that what is written is, 'So-and-so and So-and-so and So-and-so'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is no separation. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי לריש לקיש דאמר זמן אחד לכולן נמי טופס הוי והיכי דמי כלל דכתיב ביה הכי אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית נמצאו שתי נשים מתגרשות בגט אחד והתורה אמרה וכתב לה ולא לה ולחברתה

Moreover, if we accept the view of R. Johanan that a 'formula' [Get] is one where there is a separate date for each, why [should it be invalidated]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As far as the upper names are concerned. ');">⁶</span>

דהדר כתב פלוני גירש פלונית ופלוני גירש פלונית

as being a 'formula' [Get]? Why not rather as being one which is 'written by day and signed by night'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is invalid. V. supra, 17a. The questioner presumes that the various divorces bear different dates, with the result that all the divorces except the last have not been signed on the same day as written. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ומאי שנא מהא דתניא הכותב כל נכסיו לשני עבדיו קנו ומשחררין זה את זה

— Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: We state as follows in the name of R. Johanan, that [this rule applies] where it is written with each one, On the first day of the week, on the first day of the week.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are all written and signed on the same day. ');">⁸</span>

ולאו אוקימנא בשני שטרות

Rabina said to R. Ashi: On the view of Resh Lakish — that a 'formula' [Get] is also one in which there is one date for all, and that a 'joint' [Get] is one in which it is written thus: 'We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so, it follows that two women would be divorced with the same Get, and the Torah has laid down that he must write 'for her', [which implies, for her] and not for her and her neighbour? — [We must suppose] that he further writes, So-and-so divorced So-and-so and So-and-so divorced So-and-so. Rabina thereupon said to R. Ashi: How does this differ from the case regarding which it has been taught: 'If a man makes over all his property in writing to two of his slaves, they acquire possession and emancipate one another'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 42a. Here too the two slaves are emancipated with the one document; and it is a principle that the emancipation of slaves is regulated by the same laws as those of divorce.] ');">⁹</span>

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש

— [He replied]: Have we not explained this to apply only where he writes two deeds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן חמשה שכתבו בתוך הגט איש פלוני מגרש פלונית ופלוני פלונית ופלוני פלונית וזמן אחד לכולן והעדים מלמטה כולן כשרים ותנתן לכל אחת ואחת

It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan and it has been taught in agreement with Resh Lakish. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: 'If five men wrote in the same Get, So-and-so divorces So-and-so and So-and-so So-and-so and So-and-so So-and-so, and one date [is written] for all of them and the witnesses are subscribed below, all are valid and the document must be given to each woman. If there is a [separate] date for each one and the witnesses are subscribed at the bottom, the one to which the signatures are attached is [alone] valid. R. Judah b. Bathyra says that if there is a space between them it is invalid but if not it is valid, since the date does not constitute a division'. It has been taught in agreement with Resh Lakish: 'If five persons wrote jointly in the same Get, We, So-and-so and So-and-so have divorced our wives So-and-so and So-and-so, So-and-so divorcing So-and-so and So-and-so divorcing So-and-so, and there is one date for all and the witnesses are signed below, all are valid and the document must be given to each one. If there is a [separate] date for each one or space between one and another and the witnesses are signed at the bottom, the one to which the signatures are attached is valid. R. Meir says that even if there is no space between them it is invalid since the date makes a division,' But on the view of Resh Lakish why is it required here that there be a [separate] date for each one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to make it a 'formula' Get, with only the last one being valid. ');">¹¹</span>

זמן לכל אחד ואחד והעדים מלמטה את שהעדים נקראים עמו כשר ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר אם יש ריוח ביניהן פסול ואם לאו כשר שאין זמן מפסיקן

seeing that he has said that even if there is one date for all it is still a 'formula' [Get]? — That is the case only where they were not lumped together at the beginning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the formula 'we, So-and-so'. ');">¹²</span>

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש חמשה שכתבו כלל בתוך הגט אנו פלוני ופלוני גירשנו נשותינו פלונית ופלונית פלוני גירש פלונית ופלוני גירש פלונית וזמן אחד לכולן והעדים מלמטה כולן כשרין ותנתן לכל אחת ואחת

but here where they were lumped together at the beginning, if the various parts are separated by dates, there is a division, but otherwise not.

זמן לכל אחד ואחד וריוח לכל אחד ואחד והעדים מלמטה את שהעדים נקראין עמו כשר ר"מ אומר אע"פ שאין ריוח ביניהם פסול שהזמן מפסיקן

MISHNAH, IF TWO BILLS OF DIVORCE ARE WRITTEN [ON THE SAME SHEET] SIDE BY SIDE AND THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES IN HEBREW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Hebrew witnesses'. ');">¹³</span>

וריש לקיש מאי איריא זמן לכל אחד ואחד הא אמר זמן אחד לכולן נמי טופס הוי

RUN FROM UNDER ONE TO UNDER THE OTHER AND THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES IN GREEK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Greek witnesses'. ');">¹⁴</span>

הני מילי היכא דלא ערבינהו מעיקרא אבל הכא דערבינהו מעיקרא אי פליג להו זמן אין אי לא לא:

RUN FROM UNDER ONE TO UNDER THE OTHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the signatures being under one another. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שני גיטין שכתבן זה בצד זה ושנים עדים עברים באים מתחת זה לתחת זה ושנים עדים יונים באים מתחת זה לתחת זה את שהעדים הראשונים נקראין עמו כשר

THE ONE TO WHICH THE TWO FIRST SIGNATURES ARE ATTACHED IS [ALONE] VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara discusses why the other is not also valid. ');">¹⁶</span>

עד אחד עברי ועד אחד יוני ועד אחד עברי ועד אחד יוני באין מתחת זה לתחת זה שניהם פסולין:

IF THERE IS ONE SIGNATURE IN HEBREW AND ONE IN GREEK AND THEN AGAIN ONE IN HEBREW AND ONE IN GREEK RUNNING FROM UNDER ONE [GET] TO UNDER THE OTHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As neither has two names attached immediately beneath it. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וליתכשר האי בראובן והאי בבן יעקב עד דהא תנן בן איש פלוני עד כשר

BOTH ARE INVALID.

דכתב ראובן בן אקמא ויעקב עד אבתרא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why should not one be rendered valid by the signature Reuben [under it] and the other by the signature 'son of Jacob witness'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., supposing the signature is 'Reuben son of Jacob' and 'Reuben' comes under the first Get on the right and son of Jacob' under the second on the left. We can then suppose that we have two distinct signatures, one for each Get. ');">¹⁸</span>

וליתכשר האי בראובן בן וליתכשר האי ביעקב עד דהא תנן איש פלוני עד כשר

[under it] seeing that we have learnt, 'The signature "son of So-and-so, witness" [renders a document] valid'? — We suppose that he writes 'Reuben son of' under the first Get and 'Jacob witness' under the second. But cannot the first be rendered valid by 'Reuben son of' and the second by 'Jacob witness', since we have learnt, 'The subscription, "So-and-so witness" [renders the document] valid'? — We suppose he did not add 'witness'. Or alternatively I may say that he does add 'witness', but we know that this is not the signature of Jacob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But of his son. ');">¹⁹</span>

דלא כתב עד ואיבעית אימא לעולם דכתב עד ודידעינן בהא חתימה דלאו דיעקב הוא