## Gittin Daf 87b

###### Gittin 87b:1
[Gittin 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:1)

וְדִלְמָא בִּשְׁמָא דַאֲבוּהּ חָתֵים! לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ שְׁמֵיהּ וְחָתֵים שְׁמָא דַאֲבוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps** Reuven signed both bills of divorce, and **he signed** the second one **with his father’s name?** The Gemara answers: **One does not leave** out **his** own **name and** instead **sign in the name of his father.**


###### Gittin 87b:2
[Gittin 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:2)

וְדִילְמָא סִימָנָא שַׁוְּיֵיהּ – דְּהָא רַב צָיֵיר כְּווֹרָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא – חֲרוּתָא, רַב חִסְדָּא – סָמֶךְ, רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא – עַיִן, רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא צָיֵיר מָכוּתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps he made** his father’s name **a symbol** for his own signature? **As Rav would draw a fish** instead of signing his name, **Rabbi Ḥanina** would draw **a date palm, Rav Ḥisda** would write **a *samekh*, Rav Hoshaya** would write **an *ayin*,** and **Rabba bar Rav Huna would draw a sail.**


###### Gittin 87b:3
[Gittin 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:3)

לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי לִשְׁמָא דַאֲבוּהּ סִימָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A person would not be so brazen as to make his father’s name a symbol.** Therefore, it is assumed that the word Ya’akov is a continuation of Reuven’s signature on the first bill of divorce, not a separate signature on the second bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 87b:4
[Gittin 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:4)

וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים עִבְרִים, וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים יְוָנִים – דִּתְנַן: גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָנִית, יְוָנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a different question: **But let this** bill of divorce **be validated by** the **two Hebrew witnesses, and let that** bill of divorce **be validated by** the **two Greek witnesses, as we learned** in the subsequent mishna that **a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses** signed **in Greek,** or that was written **in Greek and its witnesses** signed **in Hebrew, is valid.**


###### Gittin 87b:5
[Gittin 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:5)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּמוּפְלָג בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין – לָא; וְהָאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִלְּאָהוּ בִּקְרוֹבִים – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say that since** the signatures of the witnesses of the second bill of divorce **are two lines away** from the bill of divorce itself, it is **not** valid, as that is the *halakha* with regard to a document that has a gap between the text and the signatures, **but didn’t Ḥizkiyya say** that if the gap was **filled,** even **with** the signatures of **relatives** who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, it is **valid?**


###### Gittin 87b:6
[Gittin 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:6)

הָא תָּנֵי זְעֵירִי: שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּשֵׁרִין. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן – דִּלְמָא גּוּנְדָּלִית חֲתֻים, וְכוּלְּהוּ אַחַד הוּא דַּחֲתִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Ze’eiri** in fact **teaches** that **both of** the two bills of divorce **are valid,** not only the one beneath which the names of the first two witnesses appear. The Gemara asks: **And** what is the reasoning of **the *tanna* of our** mishna, who does not agree with this ruling? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that **perhaps** the bottom two witnesses **signed in reverse [*gundalit*].** For example, if the top two signatures are in Hebrew, perhaps the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of their signatures, imitating the Hebrew style, **and** in actuality **all of the** witnesses **signed one** bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 87b:7
[Gittin 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:7)

עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי. וְלִיתַּכְשַׁר הַאי בְּעֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, וְהַאי בְּעֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי – דְּהָא תְּנַן: עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that if **one witness** signed in **Hebrew and** then **one witness** signed in **Greek,** and then one more witness signed in Hebrew and one in Greek, both bills of divorce are invalid. The Gemara asks: **But let this** bill of divorce **be validated by one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, and that** bill of divorce be validated **by** the other pair composed of **one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness. Didn’t we learn** in the subsequent mishna that a bill of divorce that was signed by **one witness** in **Hebrew and one witness** in **Greek is valid?**


###### Gittin 87b:8
[Gittin 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:8)

הָא תָּנֵי זְעֵירִי: שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן – דִּלְמָא גּוּנְדָּלִית חֲתֻים; וּתְלָתָא אַחַד, וְחַד אַחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Ze’eiri** in fact **teaches** that **both of them are valid.** The Gemara asks: **And** what is the reasoning of **the *tanna* of our** mishna? The Gemara answers: He is concerned that **perhaps they signed in reverse,** i.e., perhaps one of the witnesses who signed in Greek reversed the word order of his signature, **and** in actuality he signed the other bill of divorce. Consequently, **three** witnesses signed **one** bill of divorce **and** only **one** witness signed the other **one.** Therefore, they are both rendered invalid.


###### Gittin 87b:9
[Gittin 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** שִׁיֵּיר מִקְצָת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בְּדַף הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – כָּשֵׁר. חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף, מִן הַצַּד, אוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו; בְּגֵט פָּשׁוּט – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a scribe **left out part of the bill of divorce and wrote it in the second column,** i.e., the bill of divorce is written in two columns on one paper, **and the** signatures of the **witnesses are beneath** the second column, it is a **valid** bill of divorce. If the **witnesses signed at the top of the column, on the side, or on the back of an ordinary,** non-folded **bill of divorce,** it is **invalid.**


###### Gittin 87b:10
[Gittin 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:10)

הִקִּיף רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע – אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע – אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין בְּסוֹפוֹ, כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the scribe **placed the top of this** bill of divorce **next to the top of that** bill of divorce so that both are written in the same column but with the text in opposite directions, **and the witnesses** signed **in the middle,** between the bills of divorce, **both** bills of divorce **are invalid.** If he placed **the end of this** bill of divorce **next to the end of that** bill of divorce, **and the witnesses** signed **in the middle** between them, the bill of divorce **with which the witnesses’** signatures **are read,** i.e., the bill that is written in the same direction as the signatures, **is valid.** If he placed **the top of this** bill of divorce **next to the end of that** bill of divorce, **and the witnesses** signed **in the middle,** the bill of divorce **at the end of which the witnesses are read,** i.e., the upper bill of divorce, **is valid.**


###### Gittin 87b:11
[Gittin 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:11)

גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְווֹנִית; יְווֹנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית; עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְווֹנִי; כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses** signed **in Greek,** or that was written **in Greek and its witnesses** signed **in Hebrew,** or in which **one witness** signed **in Hebrew and one witness** signed **in Greek,** or if a bill of divorce has **the writing of a scribe,** and the scribe identifies his handwriting, **and** one **witness** verifies his signature, it is **valid** as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures.


###### Gittin 87b:12
[Gittin 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:12)

״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר. ״בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי״, וְלֹא כָּתַב ״עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר, וְכָךְ הָיוּ נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין. כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As for the wording of the signature, if a witness signed: **So-and-so, witness,** without mentioning his father’s name, it is **valid.** Similarly, if he did not write his name and instead wrote: **Son of so-and-so, witness,** it is **valid.** If he wrote: **So-and-so, son of so-and-so, but did not write** the word **witness,** it is **valid. And this is what the scrupulous people of Jerusalem would do,** i.e., they would sign without the word witness. As for the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe **wrote his surname [*ḥanikhato*]** or nickname **and her surname** or nickname, it is **valid.**


###### Gittin 87b:13
[Gittin 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הָנֵי תְּרֵי גִּיטֵּי הֲווֹ; וְאִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ זְמַן דְּקַמָּא, וְעֵדִים דְּבָתְרָא; וְגַזְיֵיהּ לִזְמַן דְּבָתְרָא וְעֵדִים דְּקַמָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to a bill of divorce that is written in two columns, **let us be concerned** that **perhaps these were two** adjacent **bills of divorce,** the second one higher up on the page than the first, **and the date** written at the top **of the first** bill of divorce **and the** signatures of the **witnesses** written at the bottom **of the latter** bill of divorce **happened** to be written next to each other, **and** someone **cut out the date of the latter** bill of divorce **and** the signatures of **the witnesses of the first** so that it appears to be a single bill of divorce written in two columns.


###### Gittin 87b:14
[Gittin 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/87b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה. וְדִלְמָא זְמַן דְּבָתְרָא מִיגָּז גַּזְיֵיהּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Abba says** that **Rav says:** It is a case **where there is space** on the paper **below** the first bill of divorce, so it is clear that nothing was cut out. The Gemara asks: **And perhaps he cut out the date of the latter** bill of divorce, making it look like a continuation of the first one, which was actually never finished? The Gemara answers: **Just as Rabbi Abba says** that **Rav says** that it is a case **where there is space below** the first bill of divorce,