וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר—And he had it signed and he gave it to her, it is a גט כשר.

OVERVIEW The גמרא quotes ר"נ that ר"מ is of the opinion that כתיבה שלא לשמה is כשר even מדרבנן. Our תוספות will prove that this means that it is כשר לכתחילה to give a woman a גט that was written שלא לשמה; contrary to the superficial understanding of sר"נ' quote. The משנה in פרק כל הגט states¹ that a סופר who writes טופסי² גיטין is required to leave space to insert the names of the parties. There is a dispute in the גמרא whose opinion this משנה is following. Some maintain that this משנה follows the opinion of ר"א exclusively, who maintains that כתיבה לשמה is required (for the תורף). However according to ר"מ the סופר is permitted to write the names as well, since כתיבה לשמה is not required (only חתימה לשמה is required). Others however maintain that this משנה can follow the opinion of ר"מ. The reason why the סופר is to leave out the names is on account of a תיקון חכמים as will be explained in this תוספות. --------------- לכתחילה נמי כשר לחתום וליתן – Even initially it is permitted to have witnesses sign this גט and give it to her³ – דבפרק כל הגט (לקמן דף כו,ב) ובהכותב (כתובות דף פה,א) מוכיח מדרב נחמן דהכא – For in פרק כל הגט and in פרק הכותב, the גמרות there prove from this statement of רב נחמן here – דלמיחזי כשיקרא לא חיישינן – That we are not concerned that ‘it is perceived as a falsehood’.⁴ Were we to assume that רב נחמן is מכשיר this גט that was found in the אשפה only בדיעבד, however לכתחילה one is not to use this גט, then that would support the view of רבא, that there is a concern of מיחזי כשיקרא.⁵ The fact the גמרא uses רב נחמן to refute רבא (and the הנפק is כשר לכתחילה), proves that similarly, for such a גט, one is לכתחילה permitted to have it signed and given to the woman. תוספות cites an additional proof: ועוד תנן בפרק כל הגט (לקמן דף כו,א) הכותב טופסי גיטין – And furthermore we learned in a משנה in פרק כל הגט, ‘one who writes the ‘forms’ of גיטין – צריך שיניח מקום האיש והאשה – is required to leave blank spaces where to insert (later) the names of the man and the woman.’ וקאמר בגמרא משום קטטה ורבי מאיר היא – And the גמרא there⁶ says according to one interpretation of the משנה that the reason why he is required to omit the names is on account it may cause strife between the husband and wife; for the משנה follows the opinion of ר"מ.⁷ The גמרא there offers another explanation why according to ר"מ who does not require כתיבה לשמה, nevertheless the סופר may not write the names. או משום תקנת עגונות – Or because it is for the benefit of עגונות.⁸ We see from these גמרות, that we would be permitted to write a complete גט, including the names שלא לשמה; it is only an account of the abovementioned (two) concerns that the חכמים prohibit the סופר from writing the names. משמע במצאו באשפה דלא שייכי הני טעמי שרי אפילו לכתחילה – It is implied that when it was (already written and) found in the refuse where these abovementioned reasons are not applicable⁹ (for the גט is already written, we are discussing only whether he may have the גט signed by witnesses) it is permitted even initially to have this גט signed by witnesses and given to the woman as a valid גט. If we were to say that this גט which was found in the אשפה is not כשר לכתחילה, this would require some sort of justification why מצאו באשפה is not כשר לכתחילה. The גמרא should have used that reason instead, to explain why the סופר should not write the names in the גט. The fact that the concerns the גמרא there mentions are not applicable to מצאו באשפה is evidence that מצאו באשפה is כשר לכתחילה. תוספות will bolster his proof that according to ר"מ a גט written שלא לשמה is כשר לכתחילה: ומאן דמפרש נמי התם משום תקנת סופרים ורבי אלעזר היא – And according to the one who also explains the משנה there that reason the סופר who writes the גט must omit the names is because it is beneficial for the scribes, and the משנה follows the opinion of ר"א. According to ר"א the כתיבה must be לשמה thereby initially requiring that the entire גט, including the טופס form, be written ¹⁰לשמה. The חכמים however, in deference to the need of the ¹¹סופרים agreed that they may write the טופס even שלא לשמה as long as the names are written לשמה. According to this viewpoint, that the משנה which requires omitting the names, follows the view of ר"א, not of ר"מ, this – משמע דלרבי מאיר אין צריך להניח כלום ושרי לכתוב הכל – Implies that according to ר"מ, the סופר need not leave anything blank and he may write everything including the names. According to this מאן דאמר it is obvious¹² that מצאו באשפה is כשר לכתחילה.¹³ Now that תוספות has asserted and proven that מצאו באשפה is כשר לכתחילה, why does ר"נ say ‘and he had it signed it, it is כשר’, indicating seemingly that it is כשר only בדיעבד.¹⁴ He should have said: חותמו ונותנו לה; ‘he may have it signed and give it to her’, if it is כשר לכתחילה. Our תוספות will address this now: והא דלא קאמר הכא חתמו ונתנו לה – And as to the reason that ר"נ did not state here, ‘he may have it signed and given to her’ – אומר רבינו תם משום דהוה משמע דלא סגי דלא עביד הכי – The ר"ת explained for such an expression would have implied that it would be insufficient had he not done so. People might have interpreted this statement to mean that if one finds a גט with his and his wife’s name on it he is obligated to give it to his wife as a divorce¹⁵. In order to prevent such a misrepresentation ר"נ chose deliberately to state that if he had it signed and gave it her it is כשר; but not that he is required to give it to her.¹⁶ In conclusion: the דין is that a גט that was נכתב שלא לשמה is כשר לכתחילה. Now תוספות will presently ask; why is שלא לשמה different than מחובר. ואם תאמר מאי שנא דבעי לרבי מאיר לכתחילה כתיבה בתלוש – And if you will say; why is there a difference between the דינים of שלא לשמה and מחובר that regarding מחובר, according to ר"מ it is initially required that the גט be written when it is detached from the ground – למאן דמוקי מתניתין דמחובר כרבי מאיר – According to the one¹⁷ who established that the משנה of אין כותבין במחובר follows the opinion of ר"מ¹⁸ – ושלא לשמה שרי אפילו לכתחילה – However, one is permitted, even initially, to give a גט that was written שלא לשמה.¹⁹ Why do we distinguish between these two דינים; that שלא לשמה is מותר לכתחילה while מחובר is אסור לכתחילה?²⁰ תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דלגבי לשמה לא חיישינן אי מייתי גט לעדים שאינו כתוב לשמה – And the ר"ת says; concerning the requirement of signing the גט לשמה we are not concerned that if he brings a גט to witnesses (for their signature), which was not written לשמה; we are not concerned – שיחתמו גם הם שלא לשמה כיון דידעי דצריך לשמה לא אתו למיטעי – That the witnesses will also sign שלא לשמה since the עדים know that it is required to sign the גט לשמה they will not come to err; they will sign it לשמה. There is no connection between the writing and the signing, that we should be concerned that since it was written שלא לשמה the witnesses will sign שלא לשמה.²¹ The witnesses are generally not present at the writing of a document. It is merely presented to them. They cannot distinguish whether it was written לשמה or not.²² This is concerning לשמה – אבל במחובר אי כתב לה במחובר זימנין דמישתלי ואין נזכרין לתלוש וחתמי: However, concerning the פסול of מחובר, there it is different if the גט were to be written במחובר, and then the עדים would be called to sign oftentimes the may forget that the חתימה must be בתלוש and they will not remember to detach the גט. And the will sign במחובר. Here there is a definite connection between the כתיבה and the חתימה. The עדים see a גט written במחובר; it is מחובר in front of their eyes. They may continue with the signing process in the same manner, forgetting to make the necessary changes, namely detaching the גט.

SUMMARY A גט that was נמצא באשפה (written שלא לשמה) is כשר לכתחילה according to ר"מ. תוספות proves this from: A) the fact that we derive from this statement of רב נחמן that למיחזי לשיקרא לא חיישינן, B) The גמרות states that the only reason why the names have to be omitted is on account of קטטה or תקנות עגונות; no mention of שלא לשמה; C) If the משנה of כל הגט is according to ר"א, then according to ר"מ one is allowed לכתחילה to write the entire גט שלא לשמה. Notwithstanding the above ר"נ chose to phrase this היתר in a בדיעבד style; for were it couched in the affirmative it would have implied that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife, had such a גט been found באשפה. Concerning מחובר we are לכתחילה required to write בתלוש, for otherwise the עדים may forget to detach the גט before they sign it. Concerning שלא לשמה however there is no concern that if it was written שלא לשמה it will be signed שלא לשמה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does תוספות not mention first (the proof) that according to the מ"ד who maintains that the משנה of הכותב טופסי גיטין follows the opinion of ר"א, ²³ then according to ר"מ one may (even) write the גט לכתחילה לשמה?
2. It seems that either way ר"נ would have phrased his statement it can be misinterpreted.²⁴ The manner in which he actually states it, seems to say that it is only כשר בדיעבד; which is not so. Had he stated חתמו ונתנו לה as תוספות asked, it would have been misinterpreted to mean that he must give it to her. What made רב נחמן decide on the phrase he actually chose?
3. How does the ר"ת state that כתיבה שלא לשמה is מותר לכתחילה? ²⁵ We only know that if it was נכתב שלא לשמה you may give it to the woman, but we are not permitted to write the תורף of the גט לכתחילה שלא לשמה (according to those who say that the משנה of הכותב טופסי גיטין follows the opinion of ר"מ).
4. How are we to understand the meaning of the גזירה כתיבה אטו חתימה, by מחובר (or שלא לשמה)? ²⁶ Is it to be understood in a broad sense, that if the דין is that the כתיבה is מותר, then people may assume that the חתימה is also מותר; or is it in a more practical sense, that if the כתיבה is במחובר (שלא לשמה), then the same will happen to the חתימה?

footnotes: ¹ לקמן כו,א. ² The standard גט form is called the טופס. The insertion of the names and date is called the תורף. ³ תוספות is not saying that it is לכתחילה מותר to write a complete גט שלא לשמה and give it to the woman. This will depend on the שיטות in פרק כל הגט. See ‘Overview’, and later in תוספות. Our תוספות is discussing a גט that was already written שלא לשמה; that it may לכתחילה be signed and delivered to the woman. ⁴ The גמרות there are discussing the case of a הנפק, an authentication of a שטר by בי"ד, where the text of the הנפק is written before the process of authentication takes place. רבא is of the opinion that such a הנפק is פסול. It is מיחזי כשיקרא; it appears as a falsehood, since when the הנפק was written, the שטר was not as yet authenticated. [The הנפק states that we have seen this שטר and authenticated the signatures. When these words were written, בי"ד, did not as yet see the שטר in question.] The גמרא rejects this view, based on this statement of רב נחמן. [In the case of this גט which was found באשפה; when the סופר wrote it, the husband did not tell the סופר to write it, or that he intends to divorce his wife. This גט too, is מיחזי כשיקרא.] ⁵ If that were the case, an explanation would be needed why indeed is it לכתחילה פסול to be given to the wife? We are not concerned about שלא לשמה, for ר"מ does not require כתיבה לשמה. It is פסול לכתחילה (only) because it is מיחזי כשיקרא. The גט states that the husband is divorcing his wife; however when it was written there was no indication that this husband is going to divorce his wife. This גט was found in the garbage! ⁶ דף כו,ב. ⁷ Basically the סופר is permitted to write the entire גט including the names of the husband and wife, even if the husband did not instruct him to do so. This גט will be כשר to use if it becomes necessary, for ר"מ is of the opinion that כתיבה לשמה is not required (מן התורה). However the חכמים restricted writing the names, for they were concerned that perhaps the woman will become aware of this גט being written by the סופר with her and her husband’s names in it. She will erroneously surmise that her husband intends to divorce her; that he instructed the סופר to write the גט. This will lead to strife between the husband and wife. Therefore the חכמים prohibited the writing of the names. ⁸ Were the סופר permitted to write the names as well; there may be an occasion where the husband is disturbed by something his wife did, and will go in haste to the סופר for a גט and the סופר may have it all prepared. The husband will have it signed and delivered to his wife immediately. She may remain an עגונה an unwed woman. [Usually the term עגונה is reserved for a woman whose husband’s whereabouts are unknown, denying her the opportunity to remarry. In this case she may remarry legally; however maybe it will be difficult for her to remarry, so we consider her as a (potential) עגונה.] Therefore the חכמים instituted that the סופר not write the names, so there will be a ‘cooling off’ period; in which the husband will have the time to reconsider any rash action he may have intended. ⁹ תוספות is perhaps implying that if the סופר had already written the names of the parties (שלא לשמה); the גט is כשר לכתחילה. ¹⁰ The reason why the טופס need be written לשמה is because גזירה טופס אטו תורף. The תקנת סופרים neutralized this חשש. ¹¹ The סופרים prefer that the גט be written when they have spare time; and not be rushed when someone needs a divorce immediately. ¹² According to this opinion the סופר may לכתחילה write a גט including names שלא לשמה and then use this גט. Certainly if it was already written one may have it signed and delivered לכתחילה. ¹³ See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ¹⁴ The expression ‘and signed’ as well as the term ‘כשר’ all indicate a בדיעבד status. See מהרש"א. ¹⁵ Perhaps תוספות does not mean that we would have actually assumed that this should be the דין; that he must divorce his wife. Rather, תוספות means, that it is not a proper to use such a syntax that can be misconstrued to mean that he is required to divorce his wife. See סוכת דוד (and אמ"ה # 47). ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁷ See the גמרא דף כא,ב and previous תוספות דף ג,ב ד"ה דתנן. ¹⁸ According to the other מ"ד who says that the משנה of אין כותבין במחובר follows the opinion of ר"א; then ר"מ can maintain that both מחובר and שלא לשמה are לכתחילה כשר by כתיבה. ¹⁹ In reality one would even be permitted to write the entire גט (including the names) לכתחילה שלא לשמה, were it not for the reasons of קטטה and תקנות עגונות. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ²⁰ כתיבה במחובר is אסור because we are גוזר כתיבה אטו חתימה. Why are we not גוזר כתיבה אטו חתימה by שלא לשמה? ²¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4. ²² Witnesses will either sign לשמה or not, based on their knowledge of the לשמה requirement, but not based on whether or not it was written לשמה. ²³ See footnote # 13. ²⁴ See footnote # 16. ²⁵ See footnote # 19. ²⁶ See footnote # 21. See also ‘Appendix’ to next תוספות ד"ה מודה.

מודה רבי אלעזר במזוייף מתוכו—ר"א agrees where it is evidently corrupted from within

OVERVIEW The גמרא maintains that the משנה can follow the opinion of רבי אלעזר (even according to רבה). The reason why we require the חתימה to be לשמה is because if the חתימה were שלא לשמה it would be considered מזוייף מתוכו. Even though ר"א does not require עדי חתימה, nevertheless he maintains that if there are עדי חתימה, they must be valid עדים. If the עדי חתימה are not valid עדים, then the שטר is deemed to be מזוייף מתוכו and it is פסול. Our תוספות discusses the reason that מזוייף מתוכו is פסול, and how it applies to חתימה שלא לשמה.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק – The ר"י is perplexed by this statement that חתימה שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו: מה ענין שלא לשמה למזוייף מתוכו שחתומים בו קרובין או פסולין – What connection is there between signing שלא לשמה to the דין of מזוייף מתוכו which applies in cases where relatives or invalid witnesses¹ signed the document?! It is only in these cases (that רבי אבא states) that רבי אלעזר maintains that since it is מזוייף מתוכו, by these witnesses signing the שטר, therefore it is פסול – דהתם בדין מיפסל משום דילמא אתי למיסמך עלייהו – For in those instances the שטר is justifiably invalidated because it may be that we will come to depend on the signatures of these invalid**** witnesses – להשיאה או להוציא ממון על פיהם – To allow her to remarry, or to extract money on the basis of their testimony,² and – אף על פי שהדבר אמת³ אין לעשות אלא בעדות כשר – Even though that the testimony is true; it should not be done, unless proper witnesses attest to the facts (that she is divorced, or the money is owed). In these cases however, where the עדים are קרובים or פסולים, we are allowing her to remarry or to collect money based on the testimony of עדים פסולים. Therefore a שטר which is signed by עדים פסולים is invalid, since we may rely on the עדי חתימה who are פסול. תוספות will now prove that the testimony of עדים cannot be accepted, even if it is true, unless it is presented in the approved manner. כדאמר בפרק ארבעה אחין⁴ (יבמות דף לא,ב) – As the גמרא says in פרק ארבעה אחין concerning a שטר קידושין⁵ – נינחיה גבי עדים זימנין דחזו בכתבא ומסהדי ורחמנא אמר מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם – ‘Shall we place the שטר קידושין with the witnesses; at times they may see the testimony in the written שטר and they will testify according to what is written, but the תורה states that we believe witnesses what they say from their mouths, not from their written documents’.⁶**** We derive from that גמרא that the proper procedure must be followed by הגדת עדות. Even though they will testify correctly; we have given them the שטר קידושין that they themselves signed, and that we know is correct. Nevertheless since the תורה requires that the testimony of עדים, not be based on a written document, but rather on their memory (מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם), we cannot accept this testimony even though it is true. The same holds true if קרובים or פסולים signed on a valid שטר, for which there were עדי מסירה who witnessed the transaction. When it will become necessary to corroborate the action called for in the שטר, we cannot depend on these עדי חתימה; we must have the original עדי מסירה. These עדי חתימה are פסול; we cannot enact anything based on the testimony of their signatures, even though it is true. This explains why ר"א maintains that מזוייף מתוכו, in the case of עדים פסולים, is a שטר פסול. Inadvertently we may rely on the testimony of their signatures when the עדי מסירה will not be readily available. אבל הכא שהעדים כשרים אלא שחתמו שלא לשמה – However in our case, where the עדים who signed שלא לשמה were proper עדים; they merely signed the גט שלא לשמה⁷ – מה תקלה יש בכך אם נסמוך עליהם – What calamity can there be if we will depend on them, and allow the woman to remarry based on their testimony. They are עדים כשרים. They are aware that the husband is divorcing his wife. The fact that they signed שלא לשמה should not detract from their signed testimony that she is divorced. תוספות anticipates a possible solution, and refutes it. וליכא למימר דאי שרינן בחתמו שלא לשמה יבא להכשיר זמנין – And we cannot say that the reason we consider חתימה שלא לשמה to be מזוייף מתוכו for if we will permit a גט that was signed שלא לשמה it may result occasionally, that we may permit – דיחתמו תחילה ויכתבו גט על גבי חתימתן⁸ והתם ליכא עדות כלל – That the witnesses may sign initially; before the גט is even written and afterward they will write the גט above their signatures, and in that case there is no testimony at all. The עדים did not really sign a document they just wrote their names on a blank parchment. It is obvious that we cannot rely on their signatures as testimony. This seemingly should explain why ר"א will maintain that חתימה שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו. We are not concerned about שלא לשמה itself, as תוספות previously explained. However we are concerned that if חתימה שלא לשמה is permitted then eventually the עדים will sign before the גט is written. We surely cannot rely on the signatures in such an event. תוספות refutes this explanation: דאם כן מטעם זה גם בשאר שטרות היה לנו להצריך חתימה לשמה – for were this true; that there is a valid concern, that if it is signed שלא לשמה people will eventually allow them to sign before the document is written, then for this same reason; by other documents, besides גיטין we should have also required חתימה לשמה; to prevent a similar occurrence of the witnesses signing before the document is even written.⁹ The fact that no other document is required to be signed לשמה is proof that there is no such concern. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמכל מקום¹⁰ איכא למיגזר חתימה אטו כתיבה – And one can say; that nevertheless we can make a decree concerning the חתימה on account of the כתיבה – דאם אין עושין חתימה לשמה גזרינן פן לא יכתבו גם הכתיבה לשמה: For if the חתימה will not be performed לשמה we are concerned that perhaps the writing of the גט will not be written לשמה either¹¹. A גט that is written שלא לשמה is פסול מדאורייתא according to ר"א. Therefore a גט that is signed שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו and is ¹²פסול.

SUMMARY The פסול of מזוייף מתוכו in general refers to a שטר that קרובים or פסולים signed. According to ר"א there is no need for עדי חתימה. Nevertheless if קרובים or פסולים do sign, the שטר is פסול since it is מזוייף מתוכו. The reason for this פסול is because we are concerned that eventually we may rely on the עדי חתימה to validate the שטר. The שטר cannot be validated on the basis of these עדי חתימה since they are קרובים ופסולים. It is irrelevant that their testimony is true; the תורה requires us to accept the testimony of עדים כשרים only. We find a similar דין, concerning the requirement that the testimony of the עדים should be מפיהם and not מפי כתבם. Even though we are certain that their testimony is true, nevertheless we do not accept the הגדת עדות if it is מפי כתבם. The reason that עדי חתימה שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו, cannot be the same as for קרובים ופסולים mentioned above. Their חתימה should be accepted as a proper הגדת עדות, since they are עדים כשרים. We cannot say that חתימה שלא לשמה is מזוייף מתוכו, because we are concerned that if we permit חתימה שלא לשמה, we may come to permit the חתימה even before the כתיבה, which surely cannot be relied on as a הגדת עדות. If that concern is valid then all שטרות in addition to גיטין should require לשמה. This is not the case. The reason that חתימה שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו and is פסול is on account of a different גזירה. We are concerned if the חתימה is כשר שלא לשמה, people may mistakenly assume that the כתיבה is also כשר שלא לשמה. Therefore חתימה שלא לשמה is considered מזוייף מתוכו and the גט is פסול.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is it necessary for תוספות to bring a proof from the גמרא in פרק ד' אחין (concerning the שטר קידושין) that we require proper עדות?¹³ It is obvious that קרובים ופסולים cannot testify!
2. תוספות states¹⁴ that if the חשש of חתימה שלא לשמה is that they will ultimately sign before the גט is written; then the same גזירה should apply to all שטרות. Seemingly there is a difference between גיטין and all other שטרות. By גיטין there is a חיוב of (כתיבה) לשמה, therefore if we see the עדים signing שלא לשמה we will assume that their signing is meaningless, and they can sign even before the גט is written. In the case of all other שטרות however, there is no חיוב of either כתיבה or חתימה לשמה. Why would we suspect that people would mistakenly assume that if the חתימה is כשר שלא לשמה, they should be permitted to sign before the שטר is written!? Appendix To resolve the apparent contradiction between the two תוספות,¹⁵ a distinction needs to be made first between two types of גזירות.¹⁶ There is the practical גזירה (A). It states we cannot do (a) for if we allow (a) then inadvertently it may come to pass to do (b) as well; and (b) is forbidden. An example of this גזירה, is what we learnt in the previous תוספות that one is not permitted to write a גט במחובר (according to ר"מ), for if we write a גט במחובר (a), we may inadvertently forget¹⁷ and sign it also במחובר (b). If a גט is signed במחובר (according to ר"מ) it is פסול. Then there is the conceptual (and more universal) גזירה (B). It states we cannot do (a), for if we allow (a) then people will mistakenly think that (b) is permitted as well;¹⁸ and (b) is actually forbidden. An example of this type of גזירה is presented in this תוספות. The עדים are not permitted to sign שלא לשמה; for if they will sign שלא לשמה (a), we may mistakenly think that you are permitted to write the גט שלא לשמה (b). A גט written שלא לשמה (according to ר"א) is פסול. In the previous תוספות it was explained that גזירה (A) is applicable only by מחובר and not by שלא לשמה. We can assume that עדים will not inadvertently sign שלא לשמה because it was written שלא לשמה. There is no connection between the two; as opposed to כתיבה וחתימה במחובר, which are very much connected. We were not discussing a type (B) גזירה that people will think that since כתיבה is מותר במחובר so too חתימה is מותר במחובר and similarly by שלא לשמה. It is the opinion of תוספות that there is no such חשש. The reason being; that both כתיבה and חתימה are required in a גט according to ר"מ. The rules are clearly set. כתיבה and חתימה are clearly differentiated. כתיבה is כשר במחובר ושלא לשמה. However חתימה is פסול במחובר ושלא לשמה. Everyone knows this and sees this many times. There is no type (B) גזירה.¹⁹ According to ר"א however, כתיבה is required (לשמה); however חתימה is not required at all. There is no דין that חתימה שלא לשמה is כשר. It is merely that חתימה is not required. When people will see that the עדים signed (שלא לשמה), they will mistakenly assume that the signing of the עדים is a part of the process of writing the גט. They will subsequently assume further that if the עדים can sign שלא לשמה, the entire גט can be written שלא לשמה.²⁰ Therefore here there is a type (B) גזירה; that if we allow חתימה לשמה (a), people may mistakenly think that כתיבה לשמה (b) is also permitted. Thus the contradiction is resolved. In the previous תוספות we were discussing a type (A) גזירה, and in this תוספות we are discussing a type (B) גזירה, which is applicable only according to ר"א, and not according to ר"מ.

footnotes: ¹ These are people who are known to have committed acts which invalidate them from being acceptable witnesses. ² ר"א does not require עדי חתימה; only עדי מסירה. However in general (if there were עדי מסירה), we may also rely on the עדי חתימה to authenticate that which the שטר states; provided that they are עדים כשרים. ³ There will be עדי מסירה when the גט or the שטר is transferred to the proper party. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ In a שטר קידושין there is no זמן; for it will serve no purpose to have the זמן in a שטר קידושין as the גמרא there explains. We cannot give the שטר קידושין to either the husband or wife, because they are suspect to alter the זמן. We do not want to give this שטר קידושין to the עדים, for if they will be required to testify concerning the date of the קידושין (they may be required to testify in the case of a suspected adultery, etc.), we are concerned that they will not remember the date on their own; they will need to refer to the שטר, and that testimony is not valid; as תוספות presently quotes the גמרא there. ⁶ There is much discussion among the commentaries how is a שטר acceptable, it is מפי כתבם and not מפיהם. ⁷ There is a noted comment from רבי עקיבא איגר concerning חתימה שלא לשמה. He is puzzled what is meant by חתימה שלא לשמה. Seemingly if it is signed שלא לשמה, meaning that the עדות were somehow unaware of (the details) what they were signing, then it is not only שלא לשמה, there is no testimony at all. Various commentaries offer different possible solutions to this question. This question is not applicable according to the מ"ד who maintains that the requirement of לשמה includes that one must verbalize specifically that he is writing or signing the גט לשמה (see also נח"מ). ⁸ The reason this may come to pass is that since (there are עדי מסירה anyway, and) we are allowing them to sign שלא לשמה, it will be interpreted that their signing is merely ‘symbolic’. As a consequence people will eventually not mind even if the witnesses sign before the writing of the גט, since (there are עדי מסירה and) it is only ‘symbolic’. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁰ Even though we cannot be גוזר that if the חתימה will be שלא לשמה it may come that they will sign an empty document, nevertheless there is a different גזירה; as תוספות continues. ¹¹ The commentaries ask: In the previous תוס' ד"ה וחתמו we learnt that there is no concern that if the כתיבה is שלא לשמה the חתימה will also be שלא לשמה. Why does תוספות say here that if the חתימה is שלא לשמה we are concerned that the כתיבה will also be שלא לשמה? Seemingly it would be more logical to be גוזר the חתימה אטו כתיבה that precedes it, than to be גוזר the כתיבה אטו חתימה which follows it. See מהר"ם, מהר"ם שי"ף, מהודרא בתרא et al. See ‘Appendix’ for a possible solution to this problem. ¹² This פסול of מזוייף מתוכו by חתימה שלא לשמה is different than the פסול of מזוייף מתוכו when the שטר is signed by a קרוב או פסול. In the latter case we are concerned that we will rely on these עדי חתימה to ascertain what is written in the שטר. In the former we are concerned that it may cause that the כתיבה will be שלא לשמה as well. See (however) בל"י אות ע. ¹³ See footnote # 4. ¹⁴ See footnote # 9. ¹⁵ See footnote # 11. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over # 4 in the previous תוספות ד"ה וחתמו. ¹⁷ We will not (necessarily) think that חתימה במחובר is permitted. Rather on account of the circumstances in this instance (that it is written במחובר), we may forget and sign it במחובר as well. ¹⁸ It is not that they will merely forget (this one time) and inadvertently do (b) wrong. Rather they will mistakenly misinterpret the דין, that (b) is מותר ¹⁹ There is only a type (A) גזירה by מחובר, because of inadvertent forgetfulness; not a mistake in דין. ²⁰ See יד דוד.

הא מני רבי יהודה היא— רבי יהודהfollows the opinion ofמשנה This

OVERVIEW In the first משנה of the second פרק we find an argument between the ת"ק and רבי יהודה. The ת"ק there maintains that we require בפ"נ ובפ"נ. This would seem to contradict what the גמרא here is saying; namely that the תנא who requires כתיבה וחתימה לשמה is (only) ר"י. Our תוספות resolves this issue.

תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: אף על גב דבריש פרק ב' (לקמן דף טו,א) – Even though that in the beginning of the second פרק – תנא קמא דרבי יהודה מצריך בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ¹- The תנא קמא who argues with ר"י, requires the saying of בפ"נ ובפ"נ. How can we say that our משנה which requires כתיבה וחתימה לשמה follows the opinion of ר"י, when we see clearly in פ"ב that the ת"ק who argues² with ר"י also maintains that בפ"נ ובפ"נ is required? The ת"ק who argues with ר"י is certainly not ר"י; and yet he requires both כתיבה וחתימה לשמה!³ תוספות responds that the argument there in פ"ב between the ת"ק and ר"י is in another matter not concerning כתיבה וחתימה לשמה, however בהא סבר לה כרבי יהודה: Concerning the matter of כתיבה וחתימה לשמה the ת"ק there agrees to the opinion of ר"י, that both the כתיבה וחתימה need to be performed לשמה.⁴

SUMMARY When the גמרא says הא מני ר"י היא, it does not necessarily mean that the תנא who says this משנה is actually ר"י (for we see in פ"ב that it cannot be only ר"י), rather it means that the תנא of the משנה follows the opinion of ר"י concerning כתיבה וחתימה לשמה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות question is that the ת"ק who argues with ר"י in ריש פ"ב also maintains that כתיבה וחתימה לשמה is required. Why does not תוספות ask this same question from our very own משנה? The ת"ק of our משנה argues with ר"י as well, concerning רקם. The ת"ק maintains that from רקם one is not required to say בפ"נ (it is ר"ג and ר"א who say that you are required), while ר"י states clearly in our משנה ורקם כמזרח and one is required to say בפ"נ!⁵
2. Is it necessary to assume that when the ת"ק (in ריש פ"ב) requires בפ"נ ובפ"נ,⁶ it is because he requires כתיבה וחתימה לשמה (according to רבה), or can it be for other reasons?⁷
3. Is there a difference how תוספות understood the phrase 'הא מני ר"י היא', in his question as opposed to in his answer?⁸

footnotes: ¹ The ת"ק states clearly that if he said only בפני נכתב or only בפני נחתם, the גט is פסול. ² They argue in a case where two people said בפנינו נכתב and one (other) person said בפני נחתם; the ת"ק is פוסל and ר"י is מכשיר. ³ This entire discussion is following the opinion of רבה, who maintains that בפ"נ ובפ"נ is said on account that both the כתיבה וחתימה are required to be לשמה. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ See מהר"ם; see also מהרש"א הארוך for various answers to this question. ⁶ See footnote # 4. ⁷ See מהרש"ל and מהרש"א (הארוך). ⁸ See תפא"י and אמ"ה # 64.

עד שתהא כתיבתו וחתימתו בתלוש—Unless the writing and the signing of the גט were done while the גט was detached

OVERVIEW רבי יהודה states that both the כתיבה and the חתימה must be בתלוש. Our תוספות explains why it is necessary to mention חתימה, if the כתיבה was בתלוש.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למה ליה למינקט וחתימתו – And if you will say; why did ר"י have to mention concerning the ‘signing’, that it too needs to be performed while the גט is detached – כיון שהיתה כתיבתו בתלוש אי אפשר לחתימתו שתהא במחובר – Since the writing of the גט was בתלוש it is impossible that the signing of the גט can be במחובר.¹ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמשכחת לה שכתבו על אילן תלוש – And one can say; that it is possible that the חתימה be במחובר even though the כתיבה was בתלוש; if he wrote the גט on a detached tree – ואחר כך נטעו והשריש וחתמו – And afterwards he planted this tree with the גט written on it, and it took root and is considered מחובר, then it was signed by the witnesses. That is why ר"י states that both the כתיבה and the חתימה must be בתלוש.

SUMMARY It is possible to have the כתיבה בתלוש and the חתימה במחובר; if one replants the tree between the כתיבה and the חתימה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Let us say that the reason ר"י mentioned 'וחתימתו', is to teach us that 'וכתב' refers both to the כתיבה and the חתימה. This would teach us that both the כתיבה וחתימה are required to be לשמה.
2. What would the דין be in a case where it was נכתב ונחתם בתלוש and then he planted it, and subsequently gave it to the אשה?²

footnotes: ¹ The גט was already detached when it was written. The signing is after the writing. ² See נח"מ.

דקיימא לן הלכה כרבי אלעזר בגיטין—For we have established that the הלכה follows the opinion of ר"אregarding גיטין.

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that הלכה כר"א בגיטין, that we do not require עדי חתימה; a גט may be enacted with עדי מסירה alone. תוספות will be discussing two issues: A) Whether the הלכה is according to ר"א by גיטין only, or by שאר שטרות as well. B) What is meant that הלכה כר"א? Does it mean that עדי מסירה alone are also sufficient without עדי חתימה (but עדי חתימה alone are also sufficient), or does it mean that only עדי מסירה כרתי, however עדי חתימה alone are not כרתי.¹

משום דמיירי הכא בגיטין נקט גיטין אבל הלכה כמותו אף בשאר שטרות – Since we are discussing here the laws of גיטין, therefore the גמרא mentions that the הלכה is according to ר"א in גיטין, However, in truth the הלכה is according to ר"א even by other שטרות. Not only by גיטין, but in all שטרות the הלכה is that עדי מסירה כרתי [and not עדי חתימה כרתי. Therefore in all שטרות transactions it would (seemingly²) be required that עדי מסירה be present at the time of the delivery of the שטר to the שטר recipient; i.e. buyer of a field, etc]. תוספות will now question his own ruling and subsequently uphold it: אף על גב דכל אמוראי דלקמן (דף פו,ב) סברי כרבי אלעזר דוקא בגיטין – Even though that all of the אמוראים later in פרק המגרש uphold the ruling of ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי, only by גיטין and not by other שטרות.³ How then can תוספות claim, that the הלכה is like ר"א even בשאר שטרות? תוספות replies: קיימא לן כשמואל בדיני דפליג לקמן (שם) אדרב וקאמר אף בשאר שטרות – We follow the ruling of שמואל in monetary laws, who argues later in the גמרא of המגרש against רב, and שמואל says that the הלכה is like ר"א even by other שטרות, that עדי מסירה כרתי. תוספות will bring additional proof that the הלכה is כר"א אף בשאר שטרות ועוד בפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כח,ב) גבי מתנתא דהוו חתימי עליה תרי גיסי – And furthermore in פרק זה בורר, concerning a deed of a gift that two brothers-in-law signed on this שטר as the witnesses. This renders the עדי השטר פסול since they are relatives to each other, therefore – קאמר רבי יוסף זיל אקנייה בעדי מסירה כרבי אלעזר – רבי יוסף said: ‘go enact the**** delivery of the gift with עדי מסירה, in accordance with the ruling of ר"א, that עדי מסירה כרתי. Even though the עדי חתימה are פסול, nevertheless there will be valid עדי מסירה to effectuate the transfer of this gift. ופריך ליה אביי והאמר רבי אבא מודה רבי אלעזר במזוייף מתוכו שהוא פסול – To which אביי responded that the solution of ר"י will not be helpful, for ר"א stated that ר"א agrees that a שטר that is מזוייף מתוכו it is פסול. In this case since the two brothers-in-law who signed are קרובים and פסולים לעדות, therefore even if there are עדי מסירה, however the שטר is פסול⁴, because עדי מסירה can only enact a transaction in conjunction with a שטר כשר.⁵ Here however there is a שטר פסול on account of the קרובים. The עדי מסירה will not be able to enact the transaction. This concludes the discussion of that גמרא. We may derive from that גמרא, were it not for the פסול of מזוייף מתוכו (had there been no עדים on the שטר), the עדי מסירה would be able to enact the transaction of the מתנה even without עדי חתימה. That proves that עדי מסירה כרתי even by שאר שטרות, as תוספות presently concludes: משמע דרב יוסף ואביי דהוו בתראי סברי כרבי אלעזר – It is evident that ר"י and אביי who were from the later אמוראים⁶ are of the same opinion as ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי even בשאר שטרות. תוספות brings an additional proof that עדי מסירה כרתי בשאר שטרות: ובפרקין נמי אמר רבי אבא האי שטרא פרסאה – And later in our פרק⁷, ר"א said: this Persian שטר that was written and signed in Persian – דמסריה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן מיניה מבני חרי – That was delivered from the לוה**** to the מלוה in the presence of Jewish witnesses who understood Persian; we may collect from the unencumbered (unsold) properties of the לוה.⁸ We see that this שטר which had no עדי חתימה כשרים, for it was signed by Persian גוים, nevertheless it is considered a שטר (at least to the extent to be גובה מבני חורי),⁹ on account of the עדי מסירה. The conclusion of תוספות is that the הלכה follows the opinion of ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי even בשאר שטרות. תוספות continues: ולפיכך צריך ליזהר שיהו עדי מסירה בשעת נתינת הגט דאינהו כרתי – And therefore; since the הלכה is according to ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי [even¹⁰ בשאר שטרות] care must be taken that there be עדי מסירה at the time when the גט is delivered to the woman for they effectuate the divorce – דאי ליכא שם עדי מסירה אינה מגורשת אף על גב דאיכא עדי חתימה – For if there will not be עדי מסירה at the נתינת הגט, she will not be divorced even though there are עדי חתימה that signed on the גט, nevertheless it is only עדי מסירה כרתי, not עדי חתימה. The עדי חתימה cannot effectuate the divorce. The question may arise, if only עדי מסירה כרתי and not עדי חתימה; why have עדי חתימה at all. תוספות responds: ולא מהני עדי חתימה אלא שאם ימותו עדי מסירה או ילכו להם למדינת הים – And עדי חתימה are of no avail unless the עדי מסירה die or the עדי מסירה will travel overseas; the עדי מסירה will not be available to testify that this woman is divorced. In these cases – שתינשא על יד עדי חתימה – She may remarry on the basis of signatures of the עדי חתימה. She may use the written and signed גט as a proof that she is divorced. תוספות will now explain how does the גט prove that she was divorced properly with עדי מסירה in attendance: דמסתמא בהכשר נעשה – For it was presumably done properly with עדי מסירה. There is a proper גט before us, and עדים signed it. It is clear that the husband intended to divorce his wife. Therefore we may assume that the people involved in this גט, preformed it properly. If there would be no עדי חתימה however on the גט, we cannot assume that it was done properly with עדי מסירה. We do not even know that the husband requested that this גט be written. It may be a fabricated גט. תוספות will now prove that we may rely on the עדי חתימה, [only] to ascertain that the גט was delivered properly [but not that they can effectuate the גט]: כדאמרינן בהשולח (לקמן דף לו,א) – As the גמרא says later in פרק השולח, concerning the משנה which states: 'אין העדים חותמים על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם', that this משנה – לא נצרכה אלא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי – was written only in accordance with the view of ר"א¹¹ who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי. Therefore עדי חתימה are not necessary. Nevertheless – תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה דזימנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי דאזלי למדינת הים – The רבנן instituted that עדי חתימה should sign on the גט for oftentimes the עדי מסירה may die or they may travel overseas; the עדי מסירה will not be available to verify the status of the גט. The fact that there are עדי חתימה on the גט is sufficient verification that the גט was executed properly with עדי מסירה. ¹² תוספות will offer [another] proof that according to ר"א (whose ruling we follow), עדי חתימה cannot effectuate a גט. וכן משמע בפרק בתרא (לקמן דף פו,ב) גבי שנים ששלחו שני גיטין – And this is also implied in the last פרק concerning the case of two people who sent two גיטין to their respective wives ושמותיהן שוין [ונתערבו] נותן שניהם לזו ושתיהן לזו – And the respective names of the couples were identical, and the גיטין became mixed up. We cannot identify which גט each husband sent.**** The דין is; we are to give both גיטין to this wife and both גיטין again to the other wife. In this manner we can be assured that each woman received the proper גט from her husband. וקאמר בגמרא דלא כרבי אלעזר משום דלא ידעי עדי מסירה בהי מינייהו מיגרשא – And the גמרא there says¹³**** that this solution cannot follow the opinion **of ר"א, because the עדי מסירה (**that will be present when both גיטין will be delivered to both women) will not know with which of these two גיטין she is being divorced. They cannot testify with certainty at which point the divorce took place. There is something lacking in the definiteness of their testimony¹⁴. אבל לרבי מאיר ניחא – However according to ר"מ, it is a proper solution. The עדי חתימה when they signed on the גט knew which husband is giving the גט (to which wife). The גט when it was signed is a proper גט. Therefore when the גט is actually given, the עדי חתימה effectuate the divorce. They do not have to be aware when the moment of the divorce is taking place. In every גט with עדי חתימה according to ר"מ, the עדים merely sign and are not aware when the actual delivery of the גט will take place. Before תוספות continues to conclude his proof from this גמרא, he interjects a comment concerning what the גמרא says that according to ר"מ it is ניחא:¹⁵ וצריך לומר דבמשולשין איירי – It is necessary to qualify the previous גמרא which states that according to ר"מ we are to give both גיטין to both wives; that we are discussing גיטין that had a third generation written in it to identify the parties. Both parties had the same names and parents names; however they had different grandparents (third generation) names. The גיטין actually contained the grandparents’ names; the עדי מסירה (and בי"ד) could not however identify the couples based on the grandparents’ names. תוספות will now explain why it is necessary to say that במשולשין איירי. דבעי לרבי מאיר שיהא מוכח מתוכו – For ר"מ requires that it be evident from the גט, who is divorcing whom.¹⁶ If the גט was not משולש, we cannot distinguish by reading the גט alone, who the husband and wife are, since there is another couple with identical names. Such a גט is not מוכח מתוכו and is פסול. Once the גט is משולש we are able to ascertain the correct couple that is being divorced with this גט.¹⁷ כדאמרינן בריש כל הגט (לקמן דף כד,ב) גבי כתב לגרש את הגדולה – As the גמרא says later in the beginning of פרק כל הגט concerning the case where he wrote the גט with the intention of divorcing the older wife, he may not use it to divorce the younger wife, etc. From that גמרא it is evident that ר"מ requires מוכח מתוכו. This concludes this tangential comment. תוספות now returns to his proof from the previously quoted גמרא of the two similar גיטין, that according to ר"א only עדי מסירה כרתי and not עדי חתימה. ואי לרבי אלעזר סגי בעדי חתימה אמאי לא אתיא כרבי אלעזר – And if we will maintain that according to ר"א even עדי חתימה are sufficient to effectuate a גט why cannot this דין, that we give both גיטין to both wives, follow the opinion of ר"א – דל עדי מסירה מהכא בעדי חתימה סגי – Remove the עדי מסירה from here; they are useless in the sense that they cannot testify who is divorcing whom. But nevertheless the עדי חתימה are sufficient to effectuate the גיטין – אלא משמע דלעולם בעי רבי אלעזר עדי מסירה – However since the גמרא refuses to say (in the הו"א) that the דין can follow the opinion of ר"א, but rather maintains that it follows only the opinion of ר"מ, it is implied that ר"א always requires עדי מסירה even if there are עדי חתימה, for it is only עדי מסירה כרתי; but עדי חתימה are not כרתי. Their use is only as a proof, but not as enacting the process. Until now תוספות has asserted that according to ר"א, the עדי מסירה are required to be at the מסירת הגט even though there are עדי חתימה on the גט. תוספות will now add a new point to this discussion. ועוד דרגיל רבינו תם לומר דאפילו לרבי מאיר בעי עדים בשעת נתינת הגט – And furthermore, the ר"ת was accustomed to say that even according to the opinion of ר"מ who maintains that עדי חתימה כרתי, nevertheless witnesses are required at the time of the delivery of the גט to the woman. Even though there are עדי חתימה on the גט. The reason for this is: דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים – for we cannot enact any marital issue with less than two witnesses. The עדי חתימה effectuate the גט, so that we have the proper tool with which to proceed to the act of divorce. The enactment of the divorce process itself, however, requires two עדים that it be effective.¹⁸ תוספות has concluded discussing the requirement of עדי מסירה by גיטין and will now discuss the role of עדי מסירה by שאר שטרות. וכן שטר מתנת קרקע או שטר מכר שהוא לקנין קרקע ואינו לראיה – And similarly, a deed, gifting land or a deed of sale whose purpose is the acquisition of the land and it is not merely for proof of ownership¹⁹; the transference of the property was to be effected by the delivery of the שטר from the original owner to the new owner. In such instances – אין מועיל כלום רבי אלעזר אם ידוע שלא נתנו בפני עדים – Nothing will be accomplished according to ר"א²⁰ if it is known that the שטר was not delivered to the recipient (the receiver of the gift or the buyer) in the presence of witnesses. The transaction has not taken place if there are no עדי מסירה present. Neither the recipient of the gift nor the purchaser may claim title to the land. It has not been transferred to them. It is still in the possession of the original owner. He may rescind his previous decision to gift or sell this land. This is because הלכה כר"א בשאר שטרות that only עדי מסירה כרתי. There can be no enactment of any sort (that requires witnesses), unless עדי מסירה are present. תוספות will now reconsider this previous statement concerning שטרי מכר ומתנה: מיהו יש לחלק – However, it is possible that we may differentiate between גיטין and שאר שטרות; that even though by גיטין we must have עדי מסירה; and עדי חתימה are not sufficient, (and even though the הלכה is כר"א even בשאר שטרות²¹), nevertheless there is a difference – דלענין ממון דמהניא הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים²² – for concerning monetary issues such as gifting and selling where the admission of a litigant is as acceptable as the testimony of a hundred witnesses; therefore – סגי בעדי חתימה במקום הודאת בעל דין – It may be sufficient with just the עדי חתימה to effect the transaction without עדי מסירה, for we will consider the עדי חתימה to be in place of an admission from the litigant.²³ It will be considered as if the original owner admits before the בי"ד that he gifted or sold this land to the recipient.²⁴ Had he done that, בי"ד would accept his admission, and place the land under the ownership of the recipient. The same process applies when there is a שטר מכר ומתנה with עדי חתימה, that it is considered as if he admitted to the transfer of ownership. אבל בקידושין וגרושין לא מהניא הודאת בעל דין – However, concerning matters of קידושין and גירושין the admission of (any of) the parties is not acceptable; where the man and the woman both proclaim in front of בי"ד that they married or that they divorced (in the presence of witnesses), but no one can corroborate it, their testimony would not be accepted. They would remain in the same marital status as they were before this proclamation. The reason that their admission is not acceptable is – משום דמחייב לאחרים דבקידושין אסר לה אקרובים – For their admission imposes a liability on others. It limits the freedom of others; for if they admit that they married, through this he prohibits her from having relationships with any of his relatives.²⁵ She was previously permitted to marry anyone she chose (from his family). Now they cannot marry her. A person’s admission is acceptable only if he is ‘harming’ himself; not if he is ‘harming’ others. In this case he is restricting his relatives from marrying her.

And concerning an admission of divorce, he is prohibiting her from marrying a כהן. Were he to die, a כהן would be permitted to marry her. Now by asserting that they are divorced, a כהן would be prohibited from marrying her. Therefore since by גירושין and קידושין there is no rule of הודאת בעל דין, therefore עדי חתימה cannot enact the גירושין וקידושין without עדי מסירה. However by שטרי ממון where there is the דין of הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, the עדי חתימה may be accepted as a substitute for הודאת בעל דין.²⁶

SUMMARY The הלכה is like ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי both by גיטין and by שאר שטרות, since שמואל maintains that הלכה כר"א אף בשאר שטרות, and based on the story of the שטר מתנה on which two brothers-in- law signed. תוספות concludes that by all גיטין there must be עדי מסירה present even though there are עדי חתימה on the גט. תוספות based this (on the גמרא of אין העדים וכו' and) on the גמרא of the two גיטין that were mixed up. And even according to ר"מ we require עדי מסירה by the delivery of the גט, since אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים. Concerning שאר שטרי קנין, there is an uncertainty in תוספות whether they require עדי מסירה, or perhaps since by ממונות we have the rule that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, therefore the עדי חתימה may be sufficient. However by קידושין וגירושין where the rule of הודאת בעל דין does not apply, we require עדי מסירה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות proves²⁷ from the דין of שטרי פרסאי that עדי מסירה כרתי בשאר שטרות. ר"מ would seemingly also agree that if עדי מסירה say that the לוה owes the מלוה money, the לוה would have to pay (מבני חורי). How is this a ראיה that הלכה כר"א בשאר שטרות?²⁸
2. The ר"ת maintains²⁹ that even according to ר"מ we require עדי מסירה at the נתינת הגט. How are we to understand that the משנה of שני גיטין שנתערבו follows the opinion of ר"מ and not of ר"א, if according to ר"מ we also require עדי מסירה?³⁰
3. According to the שיטה that שטרי קנין require עדי מסירה,³¹ would the ר"ת also maintain that even according to ר"מ we will require עדי מסירה, since by ממון also (as well as by a דבר שבערוה) we can be מוציא ממון only ע"פ שני עדים?³²
4. תוספות says³³ that by קידושין he is חב לאחרים because אסר לה אקרובים. Seemingly תוספות could have simply said דאסר לה אכולי עלמא?³⁴

footnotes: ¹ [These two issues are related (see this תוספות later: "ולפיכך וכו'"). If we were to maintain that the הלכה is that עדי מסירה כרתי only by גיטין, but by שאר שטרות the הלכה is עדי חתימה כרתי (issue ‘A’); this would require some explanation. Why is there a difference between גיטין and שאר שטרות? Why by גיטין is the הלכה that עדי מסירה כרתי and by שאר שטרות the הלכה is that עדי חתימה כרתי? One possible explanation would be that by שאר שטרות since the פסוק (in ירמיה לב,מד) states '(וכתוב בספר) וחתום', we require עדי חתימה (see later לו,א). Concerning גיטין however since the פסוק says only 'וכתב' and does not mention חתימה, therefore עדי מסירה are sufficient (but not required). It would follow then, that עדי חתימה, which are required בשאר שטרות (and where עדי מסירה are not sufficient); they would certainly be כשר by גיטין. We would therefore conclude that when we say הלכה כר"א בגיטין, that would mean that by גיטין we may also follow the ruling of ר"א that עדי מסירה כרתי. However עדי חתימה are certainly כשר (issue ‘B’). If, however, we say הלכה כר"א by all שטרות (issue ‘A’), then we can maintain that only עדי מסירה can effectuate a transaction and not עדי חתימה (issue ‘B’).] ² See, however, later in this תוספות. ³ Concerning those אמוראים we cannot qualify their statement as תוספות qualifies the statement in our גמרא. They state specifically that the הלכה is כר"א only by גיטין and not בשאר שטרות. ⁴ See previous תוס' ד"ה מודה for the reason that מזוייף מתוכו is פסול according to ר"א. ⁵ קרקע is acquired through מסירת השטר, not through עדים alone. ⁶ The rule generally is that הלכה כבתראי; the law is practiced according to the opinion of the later Rabbis. ⁷ דף יא,א. ⁸ We cannot be גובה ממשעבדי, as the גמרא says there, because there is no קול. The reason there is no קול in this שטר is a disputed matter. Some say because only עדי חתימה can create a קול. Others maintain that since it was written in Persian there is no קול. See previous תוס' דף ג,ב ד"ה וגובה (footnote # 15). Even though תוספות there says that there were עדי עכו"ם on the שטר and they are considered like ערכות (so seemingly there is no proof that ע"מ כרתי), nevertheless since למסקנא this שטר פרסאה cannot collect ממשעבדי, this proves that the עדי עכו"ם are meaningless and the שטר collects מבנ"ח only because of the ע"מ. (See מהרש"א הארוך). ⁹ The לוה cannot claim פרעתי. See מהרש"א הארוך. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁰ See footnote # 1 for an explanation of 'ולפיכך'. ¹¹ According to ר"מ since עדי חתימה כרתי the חתימת העדים is מדאורייתא. ¹² If the הלכה would be that עדי חתימה alone can effectuate the גט, the גמרא could have said that the reason the חכמים were מתקן עדי חתימה is for those cases where we are concerned that at the time of delivery there will not be עדי מסירה כשרים. Therefore we have the עדי חתימה sign to effectuate the גט. Since the גמרא does not give this reason, that is proof that the עדי חתימה can in fact not effectuate the גט (according to ר"א). They can merely be relied on, that the גט was executed properly with עדי מסירה. See תוספות הרא"ש. ¹³ This is merely the הוה אמינא of that גמרא. See following footnote #14. ¹⁴ The גמרא maintained in the הו"א that ר"א requires נתינה לשמה as well as כתיבה לשמה. Therefore since the עדים do not know with which גט she is being מגורשת there is no נתינה לשמה. The conclusion of the גמרא is that even ר"א does not require נתינה לשמה and it will be a valid solution according to ר"א as well. ¹⁵ See however תוספות הרא"ש where it seems that 'משולשין' is an integral part of the ראיה. ¹⁶ See תוספות ב,ב (ג,א) ד"ה ורבנן. ¹⁷ Even though we cannot ascertain it now, nevertheless it is כשר, because in principle we will be able to ascertain, who is being divorced with this גט. ¹⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁹ A שטר מכר may have two functions. It may prove that that the property belongs to the holder to the שטר. In addition a שטר מכר is the means by which the ownership of the property is transferred from the seller to the buyer. It is a שטר קנין as well as a שטר ראיה. ²⁰ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ²¹ There is a dispute among the אחרונים, according to the 'יש לחלק', if עדי מסירה כרתי by שטרי ממון. ²² If the נותן admits that he transferred the property properly with a שטר (and ע"מ), it would be valid. ²³ See נח"מ. See [however] also אילה שלוחה (עמ' רא) (whether במקום בע"ד means when there is a הודאת בע"ד). ²⁴ It is very questionable when the בעל דין is מודה that he gifted or sold the land with a שטר without ע"ח or ע"מ that it will be a valid קנין. However if they were ע"ח on the שטר, we may consider the שטר valid (even if we maintain that ע"מ כרתי), on account of הודאת בעל דין. The עדי חתימה provide us with proof that there was a transfer of a שטר (as if the נותן admitted it). Without עדים however the הודאת בעל דין (of transferring a שטר without ע"ח וע"מ) cannot create a קנין שטר, because the שטר itself contains no proof that it was actually transferred or that it is indeed a שטר. See סוכת דוד אות כו. See also נח"מ ובל"י (and footnote # 26). ²⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4. ²⁶ By גו"ק since we must know objectively that there were ע"מ (the admission of the parties that there were ע"מ is insufficient), therefore גו"ק can be enacted only with ע"מ; however by ממון since the property can be transferred by הודאת בע"ד alone (if he admits that he gave a שטר with ע"מ), this indicates that the ע"מ do not (solely) enact the transaction (for in this case we do not know objectively that there were ע"מ), therefore ע"ח (who assure us that there was a transfer of a שטר) can enact the transaction (as if it were הודאת בע"ד). See also אמ"ה # 131-135. ²⁷ See footnote # 9. ²⁸ See נח"מ. ²⁹ See footnote # 18. ³⁰ See נח"מ. ³¹ See footnote # 20. ³² See נח"מ. ³³ See footnote # 25. ³⁴ See רש"ש.

ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו והני נמי לא שכיחי—And this master maintains that we say בפ"נ since עדים are not available to authenticate it, and these cities are also not frequented.

OVERVIEW The מקשן maintains that the מחלוקת whether we say בפ"נ in the case of סמוכות (ומובלעות) depends on whether we follow the reason of לשמה (the ת"ק, who does not require בפ"נ) or עדים מצויין לקיימו (it is required; ר"ג). Concerning מובלעות even ר"ג agrees (to the ת"ק) that we do not say בפ"נ, since by מובלעות it is שכיחי¹. The מקשן however does not state specifically why ר"א maintains that מובלעות do say בפ"נ. Our תוספות will discuss the reason why ר"א maintains that מובלעות are required to say בפ"נ. Generally, if at all possible, it is preferable that a מחלוקת should not be based on factual differences². It is preferable that the disputing parties agree on the facts; the dispute should be about differing concepts. The argument whether the reason of saying בפ"נ is on account of לשמה or on account of אין עדים מצויין לקיימו, is a conceptual argument – מחלוקת בסברא; a disagreement whether סמוכות and/or מובלעות are בקיאין לשמה or not (or if עדים מצויים לקיימו or not), is a factual argument – מחלוקת במציאות.

תוספות will offer a possible explanation for the opinion of ר"א (in this הוה אמינא) that מובעלות are required to say בפ"נ, and then reject it. וטעמא דרבי אליעזר לא משום דקסבר דמובלעות נמי לא שכיחי³ – And the reason that ר"א maintains that**** מובלעות are also required to say בפ"נ is not because ר"א is of the opinion that the engulfed cities are also not frequented;⁴ אלא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים – But rather⁵ the reason that מובלעות are required to say בפ"נ according to ר"א is that we should not differentiate among the overseas cities; to maintain that some are required to say בפ"נ and others are not required. We prefer that all cities in מדה"י say בפ"נ (even if there are עדים מצויין לקיימו), as not to lead to any confusion. כדמשמע⁶ בסמוך – As is evident later in the מסקנא of the גמרא, that the reason why ר"א requires בפ"נ by מובלעות is an account of שלא תחלוק במדה"י. We may therefore assume that at this point of the גמרא as well (in the הוה אמינא), the same reason applies.

SUMMARY The reason ר"א requires אמירת בפ"נ by מובלעות in the הו"א (as in the מסקנא) is not because מובלעות are not שכיחי (or גמירי), but rather שלא תחלוק במדינת הים.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why indeed according to the מסקנא (where the ת"ק and ר"ג [seemingly] have a מחלוקת במציאות), did not the גמרא say that ר"א also has a factual disagreement with ר"ג (and the ת"ק) whether מובלעות are שכיחי וגמירי?⁷
2. According to תוספות that (even) in the הו"א the גמרא assumed that the reason why ר"א requires בפ"נ by מובלעות is because שלא תחלוק, then why was it necessary for the תרצן to state it (again)?⁸

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא does not explicitly state this. It is however self evident. ² The reason for this would be; there is no need to argue about the facts, we should merely try to verify them. In addition, if it is a factual disagreement, then seemingly one of the disputants are definitely wrong. These two difficulties are avoided in a conceptual argument. ³ This would be in opposition to ר"ג who will maintain that מובלעות are שכיחי. ⁴ The reason we may have thought (in this הו"א) that ר"א is מחייב to say בפ"נ by מובלעות because מובלעות לא שכיחי, is since the גמרא gives only one reason for the חיוב to say בפ"נ by סמוכות ומובלעות; namely לא שכיחי. This would seemingly apply to ר"א by מובלעות (as well as to ר"ג by סמוכות). ⁵ The reason תוספות rejects the previous interpretation may be because the גמרא now preferably maintains that the dispute between the ת"ק and ר"ג is based on the cause of saying בפ"נ. It is a מחלוקת בסברא; not a מחלוקת במציאות (whether or not they are בקיאין or שכיחי [see overview]). If however we were to maintain that ר"א argues factually with ר"ג concerning מובלעות, whether or not מובלעות are שכיחי, then the entire advantage of this interpretation is lost. There is no compelling סברא to assume this interpretation. Therefore תוספות prefers to keep the dispute on a conceptual level as opposed to a factual disagreement (in the הו"א as well). ⁶ Others change the text to read: 'כדמשני בסמוך' – ‘as he answers later’. They are seemingly of the opinion that it is not merely משמע בסמוך; it states so clearly, that the טעם of ר"א is משום שלא תחלוק. Our reading of the text ('כדמשמע') will claim however, that indeed later the גמרא states explicitly this reason in the מסקנא, however we cannot be sure that in the הו"א we follow the same reasoning (see footnote # 4). It is only משמע; since later even when we have a factual dispute between the ת"ק and ר"ג concerning סמוכות, nevertheless the גמרא does not want to carry on this factual מחלוקת to מובלעות and wants to limit the factual מחלוקת as much as possible. Therefore in the הו"א where there is no factual מחלוקת between the ת"ק and ר"ג (and the basis of the הו"א was that this type of מחלוקת is preferable) there is certainly no need to create a factual מחלוקת between ר"ג and ר"א. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ See מהרש"א (הארוך). ⁸ See אמ"ה # 145.