וְדִלְמָא בִּשְׁמָא דַּאֲבוּהּ חֲתִים! לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ שְׁמֵיהּ וְחָתֵים שְׁמָא דַּאֲבוּהּ.

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.

וְדִילְמָא סִימָנָא שַׁוְיֵיהּ! דְּהָא רַב צָיֵיר כַּוְורָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא – חָרוּתָא, רַב חִסְדָּא – סמ״ך, רַב הוֹשַׁעֲיָא – עי״ן, רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא צָיֵיר מַכוֹתָא!

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.

לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְשַׁוּיֵי לִשְׁמָא דַּאֲבוּהּ סִימָנָא.

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.

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

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.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּמוּפְלָג בִּשְׁנֵי שִׁיטִּין לָא, וְהָאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִלְאָהוּ בִּקְרוֹבִים – כָּשֵׁר!

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?

הָא תָּנֵי זְעֵירֵי: שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּשֵׁרִין. וְתַנָּא דִּידָן? דִּלְמָא גּוּנְדָלִית חֲתִים, וְכוּלְּהוּ אַחַד הוּא דַּחֲתִימִי.

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.

״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!

§ 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?

הָא תָּנֵי זְעֵירֵי: שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים. וְתַנָּא דִּידָן? דִּלְמָא גּוּנְדָלִית חֲתִים, וּתְלָתָא אַחַד, וְחַד אַחַד.

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.

מתני׳ שִׁיֵּיר מִקְצָת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בַּדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה – כָּשֵׁר. חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף, מִן הַצַּד, אוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו, בְּגֵט פָּשׁוּט – פָּסוּל.

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.

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.

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.

גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָונִית, יְוָונִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי, כְּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר.

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.

״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.

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.

גמ׳ וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הָנֵי תְּרֵי גִּיטֵּי הָווּ, וְאִיתְרַמֵּי לֵיהּ זְמַן דְּקַמָּא וְעֵדִים דְּבַתְרָא, וְגַזְיֵיהּ לִזְמַן דְּבַתְרָא וְעֵדִים דְּקַמָּא!

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה. וְדִלְמָא זְמַן דְּבַתְרָא מֵיגַז גַּזְיֵיהּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ רֶיוַח מִלְּמַטָּה,

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,