signed

Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.

And he said unto the youth, having signed (sealed) him: Go and take hold on her hand and say unto her: I with my hands slew thee with iron, and with my hands in the faith of Jesus I raise thee up. So the youth went to her and stood by her, saying: I have believed in thee, Christ Jesu. And he looked unto Judas Thomas the apostle and said to him: Pray for me that my Lord may come to my help, whom I also call upon. And he laid his hand upon her hand and said: Come, Lord Jesu Christ: unto her grant thou life and unto me the earnest of faith in thee. And straightway as he drew her hand she sprang up and sat up, looking upon the great company that stood by. And she saw the apostle also standing over against her, and leaving the bed she leapt forth and fell at his feet and caught hold on his raiment, saying: I beseech thee, my lord where is that other that was with thee, who left me not to remain in that fearful and cruel place, but delivered me unto thee, saying: Take thou this woman, that she may be made perfect, and hereafter be gathered into her place?

And Thomas answered and said, 'I believe, my Lord and my God, that Thou art the Father, Thou art the Son, and Thou art the Holy Spirit, and that Thou didst rise from the dead, and that Thou hast saved every man by Thy holy resurrection. But I did say to my brethren the Apostles, "Unless I see Him [after] He hath risen I will not believe."' And the Saviour answered and said unto him, 'Verily I say unto thee, O Thomas, thou little man, in every place wherein thou shalt preach My name, I, and My Good Father, will be with thee. And thou shalt not enter into any city, or any village, but I will follow thee with My Good Father and the Holy Ghost. For that which thou shalt plant My Father shall bless, and I will cause it to increase, and the Holy Spirit shall be the director thereof.' Then Thomas put forth his finger and took out [some] of His blood which flowed down from the side of the Son of God, and he signed himself therewith. And the Saviour answered and said to all the Apostles, 'Behold, My blood of God hath joined to your bodies, and ye yourselves have become divine, even as I. Behold, I am with you until the end of the world.' When the Saviour had said this, He departed into heaven in great glory, saying, 'Be not careless, Peter, thou and thy brethren, … pasture them …

Concerning the order of Baptism, and the profession of the Faith, and the confession of sin at baptism and the Oblation; and concerning the milk and honey. At the time of cock-crow they shall first pray over the water. And it shall be either such as flows into the tank of baptism or is caused to flow down upon it And it shall be thus unless there is a scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity they shall carry water to the tank, having drawn (it from a well). And they shall put off their garments and be baptised naked. And they shall baptise the little children first; and if they can speak for themselves, let them speak. But if they cannot, their parents shall answer the word instead of them, or one of their relatives. And afterwards they shall baptise the grown-up men. And afterwards all the women shall loose their hair; and they shall be forbidden to wear their ornaments and their gold, when they are baptised, and none of them shall go down having anything alien with them into the water. And whenever they baptise, the bishop shall give thanks over the oil which is in a vessel, and it is named mystic oil; and he shall take other oil and exorcise Satan in it, and it is named oil which has been exorcised from every unclean spirit. And there shall be a deacon who will carry the oil in which (Satan) was exorcised, and he shall stand on the left of the presbyter; and another deacon shall take the mystic oil, and shall stand on his right And let the presbyter, having taken every one of those who shall be baptised, bid them renounce and say: I renounce thee, Satan, and all thine angels and all thine unclean works. And when he has professed this, he shall anoint him with the oil which he made pure from all evil,. saying: All unclean spirits shall depart from him. Thus he shall deliver to the bishop him who shall be baptised, naked, or to the presbyter — to him who stands at the. water of baptism. Let the deacon go down with him to the water, and he shall say and instruct him: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, and in his only Son, our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life to all creation, the Trinity equal in Godhead, one Lord, and one Kingdom and one Faith and one Baptism, in the holy Church Catholic, and life eternal Amen. And he who shall be baptised shall also say again thus: Yea, I believe. And thus he shall baptise him and lay his hand upon him, and upon him who answers for him. And he shall dip him three times; and he who is baptised shall make declaration every single time that he is dipped, and afterwards he shall say to him again: Dost thou believe in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God the Father, that he became man, in an incomprehensible miracle by the Holy Spirit and by our lady Maryam, the virgin, without seed of man, and he was crucified in the time of Pilatos Pantenawi: and he died by his own will for our salvation, and rose from the dead on the third day, and released the captives, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come to judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom: and dost thou believe in the Holy Spirit, the good and the sanctifier, and in the holy Church: and dost thou believe the resurrection of the body which shall happen to all men, and the kingdom of the heavens, and eternal judgment. And he who is baptised shall answer concerning all this, saying: Yea, I believe in this And then when he has come up from the water the presbyter shall anoint him with the mystic oil, saying: I anoint thee with holy oil. And afterwards they shall put on their garments. And afterwards they shall enter the church, and the bishop shall lay his hand upon them and pray and say: God, who hast made these worthy of the washing of new birth, and of the forgiveness of sin, as make them worthy to be filled with the Holy Spirit; and speed forth and send upon them the grace of the Holy Spirit, that they may serve thy will. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the holy Church henceforth unto age of age. And afterwards the presbyter, having poured into his hand the mystic oil, shall pour on the head of them all, saying: I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of God the Father almighty and in Christ Jesus his only Son and the Holy Spirit. And having sealed all in their forehead, he shall kiss them, and say: The Lord (be) with you all. And he who was signed shall answer again, and say: With thy spirit. And after this, when everything has been finished, let them pray with all the people: and they shall not before pray with the full (lit. elder) Christians, but only after they have done the thing which we say. And after they have finished praying they shall give the salutation one to another with their mouths. And the deacons shall bring the Oblation to the bishop, and he shall give thanks over the bread and the cup; and the bread that it may become the Body of our Lord Christ, and the cup, the wine mixed, that it may become the Blood of our Lord Christ, this which was shed for us and for all of us indeed who believe in him. And the milk and honey (shall be) mingled together, and he shall make them drink of them, because of the fulfilment of the promise which he promised to our fathers, saying: I will give to you the land which floweth with milk and honey: this is the Body of our Lord Christ which he gave to us who believe in him, like food of young children, who were begotten of him, those who believe in him, that he may make every bitter heart sweet as by the sweetness of his word. All this the bishop shall go through to those who are baptised. And the water also of the Oblation he shall show in the bread like the inward part of man, who is soul as well as body. And all this explanation is what the bishop shall give to all who are baptised. And the bishop therefore having broken the bread of life, shall give a piece of it to each one and say: This is heavenly bread, the Body of our Lord Christ And he who receives shall answer and say: Amen. And if there are not sufficient presbyters the deacons shall take the cups and stand in order; the first he who has the honey, and the second he who has the milk: and he who administers shall say: God, the Father almighty: and the third he who has the wine. He who administers shall say: This is the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And he who receives shall say: Amen and Amen. And when he receives the Body he shall say: Amen; and at the Blood he shall say: Amen and Amen: a trinity this is therefore that it shall be. And each one (of them) shall be careful to do good works which please God, living in the right way and united to the Church, performing this instruction, and progressing in the service of God. This we have taught you to be said openly concerning Baptism and the ordinance of the Oblation; and behold, we have finished the instruction which we give to you concerning the resurrection of the body, and the rest as it was written. And if there is anything else which is right to be told, as then the bishop shall tell it and give it to those who are communicated. And they shall accept (it), and none shall know it except the believers, but only after they have communicated. And they shall first receive this holy blessing, which Yuhanes speaks of that there was written upon it a new name (which) no one knows except him who receives the blessing. And on the sabbath and on the first day of the week if it be possible the bishop himself with his own hand shall deliver to all the people while the deacons break the bread. And the presbyters also shall break the delivered bread. And whenever the deacon approaches the presbyter, he shall hold out his robe, and the presbyter himself shall take (the bread) and deliver to the people with his hand. And on other days they shall give (it) according to the commandment of the bishop.

And Jacob wrote all these things in the book of purchase, and he signed it, and he testified all this with four faithful witnesses.

A man who brings a bill of divorce from a country beyond the sea and states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”, must not marry the [divorcer’s] wife. [Similarly, if one states] “he died”, “I killed him”, or “We killed him”, he must not marry his wife. Rabbi Judah said: [If he says], “ I killed him”, the woman may not marry [any one]; [If, he states], “We killed him”, the woman may marry.

If a man contests [the ownership of] a field and he has signed as a witness on [its deed of sale], Admon says: He can say, “[Litigation with] the second is easier for me, since the first is a more difficult person than he”. But the Sages say: He lost his right. If [the protester] made it a boundary mark [when selling an adjacent piece of land to] another person he has lost his right [to protest].

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony.

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony.

One who brings a get from abroad [to the Land of Israel] must declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Gamaliel says: even one who brings it from Rekem or from Heger. Rabbi Eliezer says: even one who brings it from Kefar Ludim to Lud. The sages, however, say: declaration “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed” is required only from one who brings a get from abroad or who takes it there. One who brings [a get] from one province to another province in foreign lands is also required to declare, “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even from one hegemony to another hegemony.

One who brings a get within the land of Israel need not declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” If there are those who protest [its validity] it must be established through the signatures. If one who brings a get from abroad is not able to declare “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, if there are witnesses on it, its validity can be established through its signatures.

One who brings a get within the land of Israel need not declare, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” If there are those who protest [its validity] it must be established through the signatures. If one who brings a get from abroad is not able to declare “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, if there are witnesses on it, its validity can be established through its signatures.

Any document which has upon it the signature of a Samaritan is invalid, except for bills of divorce or a writ of emancipation. It happened that a bill of divorce was once brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar Otnai and its witnesses were Samaritan, and he declared it valid. All documents which are accepted in the courts of non-Jew, even if those who signed on the documents are non-Jews, are valid except bills of divorce and of writs of emancipation. Rabbi Shimon says: these also are valid; they were only pronounced [to be invalid] when done by ordinary persons.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If one brings a get from abroad and declares: “It was written in my presence” but not, “It was signed in my presence”; “It was signed in my presence” but not “It was written in my presence”; “All of it was written in my presence and in my presence but only one of the witnesses signed in my presence”; “Half was written in my presence but both witnesses signed in my presence”; [in all these cases] the get is invalid. If one says “It was written in my presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, the get is invalid. If two say, “It was written in our presence” and another says, “It was signed in my presence”, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah declares it valid. If one says, “It was written in my presence” and two say, “It was signed in our presence”, it is valid.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

If [a get was] written by day and signed on the [same] day, written by night and signed on the [same] night, written by night and signed on the day [following], it is valid. If it was written by day and signed on the night [following], it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon validates it, for Rabbi Shimon used to say that all documents written by day and signed on the [following] night are invalid except bills of divorce.

They do not write [a get] on something still attached to the ground. If he wrote it on something still attached, and then detached and signed and given to the wife, it is valid. Rabbi Judah invalidates it until it is both written and signed on something detached from the ground. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: they do not write [a get] on a sheet from which writing has been erased nor on semi-finished parchment, for it can be faked. But the sages validate [such a get].

They do not write [a get] on something still attached to the ground. If he wrote it on something still attached, and then detached and signed and given to the wife, it is valid. Rabbi Judah invalidates it until it is both written and signed on something detached from the ground. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: they do not write [a get] on a sheet from which writing has been erased nor on semi-finished parchment, for it can be faked. But the sages validate [such a get].

Even the women who are not trusted to say “Her husband died,” are trusted to bring her get: her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law (husband’s brother’s wife) and the daughter of her husband. What is the difference between the get and death? The writing [on the get] proves [that she is divorced.] A woman may bring her own get but she must say, “In my presence it was signed and in my presence it was delivered.”

If one bringing a get from abroad becomes sick, he may arrange a court of law and send him [on with the get,] declaring before them, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” And the last agent is not required to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, rather he declares, “I am the messenger of a court.”

If one bringing a get from abroad becomes sick, he may arrange a court of law and send him [on with the get,] declaring before them, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.” And the last agent is not required to say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed”, rather he declares, “I am the messenger of a court.”

They said to him, “Shall we write a get for your wife”, and he said to them, “Write!”, and they then told a scribe and he wrote and witnesses and they signed even if they wrote it and signed it and gave it back to him and he gave it to her, the get is void until he himself says to the scribe “Write” and to the witnesses, “Sign”.

They said to him, “Shall we write a get for your wife”, and he said to them, “Write!”, and they then told a scribe and he wrote and witnesses and they signed even if they wrote it and signed it and gave it back to him and he gave it to her, the get is void until he himself says to the scribe “Write” and to the witnesses, “Sign”.

Two men sent two identical gittin [to their wives] and they became mixed up they give both of them to this wife and both of them to this wife. Therefore, if one of them was lost the other is void. If five men wrote jointly in the same get, “So-and-so divorces so-and-so and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so and the witnesses [signed] below, all are valid and the get is to be given to each [of the women]. If the scribe wrote out the formula for each one and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the signatures are read is valid.

Two men sent two identical gittin [to their wives] and they became mixed up they give both of them to this wife and both of them to this wife. Therefore, if one of them was lost the other is void. If five men wrote jointly in the same get, “So-and-so divorces so-and-so and so-and-so [divorces] so-and-so and the witnesses [signed] below, all are valid and the get is to be given to each [of the women]. If the scribe wrote out the formula for each one and the witnesses signed below, only the one with which the signatures are read is valid.

If he left over some of the get [from the first sheet] and he wrote the rest of the get on the next column and the witnesses [sign] below, [the get is] valid. If the witnesses have signed at the top of the sheet or at the side or on the back of a simple get, it is invalid. If he connected the top of one get to the top of another and the witnesses’ signatures are between the two, both of them are invalid. If the end of one is connected to the end of the other and the witnesses’ signatures are between, the one with which the witnesses’ signatures reads is valid. If the top of one is connected to the bottom of the other and the witnesses’ signatures are in the middle, the one with which the witnesses’ signatures reads is valid.

A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. [If a man signs], “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. [If he signs,] “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. [If he signs,] “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid).

They do not check from the altar and upwards, nor from the duchan [dais] and upwards, nor from the Sanhedrin and upwards. And all those whose fathers were established to have been among the public officers or charity collectors may marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, and he doesn’t need to check after them. Rabbi Yose says: even one who was signed as a witness in the old court of Tzippori. Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: even one who was recorded in the king’s list of officers.

A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”

A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”

A simple document has the signatures within (at the bottom of the page); a sewn document has signatures behind [each fold]. If in a simple document its witnesses signed behind, or if in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, they are invalid. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: “If in a sewn document its witnesses signed within, it is valid, since it can be made into a simple document.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Everything should follow local custom.”

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

He also testified concerning a small village in the vicinity of Jerusalem in which there was an old man who used to lend to all the people of the village and write out [the bond] in his own handwriting and others signed it. And when the fact was brought before the Sages they pronounced it legal. Hence, incidentally, you may infer that a wife may write her own bill of divorcement, and a husband may write his own receipt; for the legality of a document depends only on those who sign it. And [he testified] concerning a needle which was found in flesh of a [sacrifice], that the knife and the hands [which had been employed on the flesh] are clean, but the flesh itself is defiled; and if it was found in the excrement, all are clean.

Rebbi Eleazar said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily. What is the reason? (Neh. 10:1) “In view of all this, we execute a contract and write, signed by our princes, Levites, and priests.” How does Rebbi Eleazar uphold (10:37): “The first-born of our cattle and flock”? Since they accepted upon themselves matters they were not obligated for, even matters they were obligated for are credited to them as if they were accepted voluntarily.

Who notifies? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court? There, it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written, any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

There we have stated: “They entered the storage room of the vessels and brought out 93 silver and gold vessels.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the 93 Names written in the Chapters of Haggai, Zacharia, and Malachi. Rebbi Ḥuna said, I computed them and they are only 83, corresponding to the 83 signatures written in Ezra where each of them declared the Unity of the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and signed. Some want to say, corresponding to the day when the daily sacrifices were the most, corresponding to thirteen bulls, fourteen sheep, two rams, and one goat.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says “it was written and signed in my presence”, he shall not marry the wife. “He died”, “I killed him”, or “we killed him”, he shall not marry the wife. Rebbi Jehudah said, “I killed him”, the wife cannot be married, “we killed him”, the wife can be married.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says”, etc. About what is he trustworthy? Samuel says, he is trusted to give a bill of divorce. Assi said, he is trusted to marry. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: He is trusted to marry. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is trusted to marry but one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case. What means, one does not infer from this ruling anything for another case? I sold one of my fields but I do not remember to whom I sold it. If someone comes and says, I bought it, he is not trusted in any way. In qiddushin, the same holds. “ I betrothed one of my daughters but I do not remember to whom I betrothed her. If someone comes and says, I gave her qiddushin,” he is not trusted in any way. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and says, it was written and signed in my presence, he shall not marry the wife.” There, she is considered by everybody to be a married woman. Here, she is considered to be a married woman only by two persons. One waits until these two come and say, this is the man who gave her qiddushin. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ This one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says, I gave her qiddushin. Both of them give a bill of divorce, but if they agree, one gives a bill of divorce and the other one marries.” He explains this, if [the father] says, I did betroth her to one of these two but I do not remember which one it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one of them jumped the gun and married her, one does remove her from him. That is, if this one says, I gave her qiddushin, and that one says. I gave her qiddushin and one of them jumped the gun and married her. But if he said, I gave her qiddushin and married her, and another one comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way. It was stated thus: If after the marriage another man comes and says, I gave her qiddushin, he is not trusted in any way.

Does the document prove? Do we not have to believe what she says? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, one does not suspect him to vilify her in the eyes of Heaven; he is suspect to vilify her in the eyes of the court. Since he knows that if he were to come [and object, his objection] would not be accepted, he has [the bill of divorce] signed by witnesses in good standing. And here, since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful.

Does the document prove? Do we not have to believe what she says? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, one does not suspect him to vilify her in the eyes of Heaven; he is suspect to vilify her in the eyes of the court. Since he knows that if he were to come [and object, his objection] would not be accepted, he has [the bill of divorce] signed by witnesses in good standing. And here, since she knows that her word does not count for the other woman, she will be truthful.

If she was seen going to a secluded place by one witness in the morning and by one witness in the evening, it is to be treated like the following: “If she was together alone with him by the testimony of two witnesses, she needs a second bill of divorce from him; if there was a single witness she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. With one witness in the morning and one witness in the evening, such a case happened and Rebbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus asked the Sages, who told him that this is not being together alone.” If he declared his jealousy before one witness in the morning and before one witness in the evening; since he is a man and she is a woman, his declaration is nothing. Or is it to be treated like the following: “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar [Rav] Isaac in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on her back and the other says, I saw one hair on her back, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia the son of Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. Two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement; Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve, if they say we did invent this before their testimony was investigated by the court, they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document, they are not trustworthy.”

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.

”If they died, others should inherit.” Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person can transfer property rights in any language except with an expression of inheritance? One does not have here “they shall inherit” but “they shall take”. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Do they not differ here in matters of a gift? If somebody signed over all his property to two persons at the same time; to one he wrote in the language of gift but to the other in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Eleazar said, since the one acquired in the language of gift, the other one acquired in the language of inheritance. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it seems that one did acquire in the language of gift but the other did not acquire in the language of inheritance Rebbi Phineas said, there came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar since Rebbi Eleazar stated a docrine but Rebbi Joḥanan said only “it seems”. Rebbi Samuel said, but did not Rebbi Meïr say that and it does not seem reasonable; is that nothing? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Assi: Carded firstling wool becomes insignificant in a plurality. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Sepphorean brought before Rebbi Ammi a pound in eight but the latter refused to rule since had not Rebbi Assi said, is that not a Mishnah? “If somebody weaves the length of a sîṭ of firstling’s wool in a cloth, the cloth must be burned, of hair of a nazir or firstling donkey in sackcloth, the sackcloth must be burned”? The following Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote any expression of gift either at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his instructions are valid.” There, to one person in an expression of gift and to one an expression of inheritance. But here to each one both in the language of gift and the language of inheritance Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: But does he not prejudice the rights of others? He said to him, if there are no brothers. But does he not prejudice the rights of his paternal uncles? Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel: A person prefers the good of his house over his relatives.

MISHNAH: If somebody protests about a field when he himself had signed as a witness, Admon says: “The second one fits me, the first one was harder”; but the Sages say, he lost his right [of appeal]. If he made [the field] a marker for another, he lost his right.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody protests about a field,” etc. Not only if he himself made it a marker for another [field], but even if a third person made it for a fourth, when he signed as a witness, he lost his right.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even somebody who brings from Reqam and Ḥeger; Rebbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda; but the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or to overseas. One who brings from one province to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even somebody who brings from Reqam and Ḥeger; Rebbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda; but the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or to overseas. One who brings from one province to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas must be able to say: “It was written and signed before me.” Rabban Gamliel says, even somebody who brings from Reqam and Ḥeger; Rebbi Eliezer says, even from Kefar Ludim to Lydda; but the Sages say that the only one who has to be able to say that it was written and signed before him is one who brings from overseas or to overseas. One who brings from one province to another overseas has to say that it was written and signed before him; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even from one district to the next.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

If [the bill of divorce] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the husband’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the divorce? Or, since his protest is void [only] about the divorce, is it valid about the gift? We have stated later: “Bills of divorce for wives and documents of manumission are equal in the rules of carrying and bringing.” If [the document of manumission] contained documentation of a gift and [the messenger] said, it was written and signed before me, is [the master’s] protest about the gift void since it is void about the manumission? Or since his protest is void [only] about the manumission, is it valid about the gift? If somebody signed all his property over to his slave, you say that the gift is the document of manumission. How do you treat this? Is it a document of manumission and his protest is void or is it a gift and his protest is valid? This can be compared to the following: If somebody signed all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a testimony about one person; as testimony it is totally invalid if it is partially invalid. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day; only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her. It was asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses at the moment of their signing? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it? And you say so? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.” He said only, outside the Land; therefore not in the Land of Israel. What about this? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles there ten people. Rebbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures than to assemble there ten people. What about this? Even in a Jewish store.

Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day; only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her. It was asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses at the moment of their signing? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it? And you say so? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.” He said only, outside the Land; therefore not in the Land of Israel. What about this? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles there ten people. Rebbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures than to assemble there ten people. What about this? Even in a Jewish store.

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

If he did not say: “it was written and signed before me”? Should not an Amora have asked this question? He said to him, that is what Rabin ben Rav said: If he brought a bill of divorce, gave it to her, but did not tell her: “It was written and signed before me”? There came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, take it from her and say in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce? Can the position of Rebbi Joḥanan be derived from Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? Would Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that if he told her at the moment of delivery that it was her bill of divorce it would not be a bill of divorce? But here, even if he tells her at the moment of delivery that it is her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce unless he tells her in front of two [witnesses]: “It was written and signed before me.” But Rebbi Joḥanan might hold that a woman cannot be believed if she says, I received a bill of divorce from my husband’s agents. But we did state: “The wife herself can bring her bill of divorce.” Would you not have to be afraid that she might have received the bill from a representative of the husband? How is it? The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is to make her known as divorcee in front of two [witnesses].

A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Ḥana: Two who brought a bill of divorce do not have to declare: It was written before us and signed before us. Rebbi Yose ben Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They have to. He himself who brought the bill of divorce does not have to deliver the bill in the presence of two [witnesses] in order to declare her a divorcee in the presence of two. “If he gave her the bill, took it from her, and threw it into the sea or into a river. If later he says to her that it was an empty papyrus or a paid bond, he cannot be believed to disqualify her.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he cannot disqualify her, who can? He said to him, since she was declared a divorcee in the presence of two [witnesses], he cannot be believed to disqualify her. If he gave her a bill of divorce which was found to be invalid, they forced him to give her a replacement. This case came before the rabbis and they declared it valid. Did we not say, he cannot be believed to disqualify her? There, the flaw was not proved; here the flaw was proved. As the following: Ḥinena, the son of Rebbi Asi, was a medical doctor and threw a bill of divorce to his wife. She cried. Her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus. The case came before the rabbis and they took it into account. But did not Rebbi Yasa say in Rebbi Joḥanan’s name: If the designation was checked and found to be based on [the testimony of] women or children, the designation is invalid? There, the designation was not mentioned. But here the name “bill of divorce” was mentioned. And some want to say, if he asserted that it was a valid bill of divorce, but she cried, her neighbor came, grabbed it from her, and gave her an empty papyrus.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it in the Land of Israel, signed it outside the Land, went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, returned and found her in the Land of Israel. He must say, “it was written and signed before me,” because he wrote it in the Land of Israel and signed it outside the Land But if it was written and signed in the Land of Israel, he went to deliver it to her outside the Land but did not find her outside the Land, he need not say, “it was written and signed before me.” If he gave her bill of divorce to her when she said, my courtyard at Acco shall acquire it for me, Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is as if she had a long arm. If she had a long arm, she stretched it out and took it from there, does he not have to say “it was written and signed before me”? Rebbi Abba said, who would deny it?

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

Rebbi Eliezer objected to the rabbis: Just as you hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another overseas has to say, “it was written and signed before me,” so I hold that one who brings a bill of divorce from one province to another in the Land of Israel has to say, “it was written and signed before me.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, it happened that one brought a bill of divorce from the harbor of Caesarea. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said yes, he has to say that it was written and signed before him. But is the harbor of Caesarea not part of Caesarea? Rebbi Abin said, it was from a departing ship, and it was stated thus: One who brings a bill of divorce from a ship is like one who brings from outside the Land and has to say that it was written and signed before him.

If there was one district which was subdivided into two, one does not have to say it was written and signed before me. Similarly if two were combined to form one.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan told the people of Sepphoris: You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a person who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia does not have to say “it was written and signed before me.” But I am saying that it is necessary, for there is a Mishnah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East and Reqam belongs to the East.” And even if you say that they disagree with Rebbi Jehudah and say that Reqam does not belong to the East, what about from Babylonia to here? Rav said, we consider ourselves as in the Land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. But Samuel said, even from one city quarter to another. He asked before him to change his opinion, when Cahana told him, what would we do with the earlier cases of women who remarried? He said to him, what do you have in your hand? For he was of Rebbi’s opinion as it was stated: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was neither written nor signed in his presence, she has to leave under the thirteen penalties, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages did not agree in this matter.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan told the people of Sepphoris: You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a person who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia does not have to say “it was written and signed before me.” But I am saying that it is necessary, for there is a Mishnah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, from Reqam to the East and Reqam belongs to the East.” And even if you say that they disagree with Rebbi Jehudah and say that Reqam does not belong to the East, what about from Babylonia to here? Rav said, we consider ourselves as in the Land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce. But Samuel said, even from one city quarter to another. He asked before him to change his opinion, when Cahana told him, what would we do with the earlier cases of women who remarried? He said to him, what do you have in your hand? For he was of Rebbi’s opinion as it was stated: If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was neither written nor signed in his presence, she has to leave under the thirteen penalties, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages did not agree in this matter.

Everybody agrees that if [the husband] comes and protests, his protest is invalid. That is, if he protested after she remarried. If he protested before she remarried and then she remarried? Let us hear from the following: It happened that somebody brought a bill of divorce before Rebbi Ismael. He asked him, from where are you? He answered, from Kefar Simai in the region of Acco. He said to him, then you have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence;” you do not need witnesses. After [that person] left, Rebbi Ilai said to him, my teacher, is not Kefar Simai in the Land of Israel, closer to Sepphoris than to Acco? He answered, since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands. What means “since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands”? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that if [the husband] came and protested, his protest would be invalid. But does a person who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel for delivery in the Land of Israel have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence”? Therefore, there cannot be any difference whether he protested after she remarried or before she remarried and then she remarried.

Everybody agrees that if [the husband] comes and protests, his protest is invalid. That is, if he protested after she remarried. If he protested before she remarried and then she remarried? Let us hear from the following: It happened that somebody brought a bill of divorce before Rebbi Ismael. He asked him, from where are you? He answered, from Kefar Simai in the region of Acco. He said to him, then you have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence;” you do not need witnesses. After [that person] left, Rebbi Ilai said to him, my teacher, is not Kefar Simai in the Land of Israel, closer to Sepphoris than to Acco? He answered, since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands. What means “since the matter was resolved in a permissive way; it stands”? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that if [the husband] came and protested, his protest would be invalid. But does a person who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel for delivery in the Land of Israel have to say, “it was written and signed in my presence”? Therefore, there cannot be any difference whether he protested after she remarried or before she remarried and then she remarried.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel does not have to say: “It was written and signed before me.” If the document is contested, it should be confirmed by its signers. If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and is unable to say: “it was written and signed before me,” it should be confirmed by its signers. Bills of divorce and slaves’ bills of manumission are equal in [the requirement] about those who carry and bring. This is one of the aspects in which bills of divorce, have the same rules as bills of manumission.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel does not have to say: “It was written and signed before me.” If the document is contested, it should be confirmed by its signers. If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and is unable to say: “it was written and signed before me,” it should be confirmed by its signers. Bills of divorce and slaves’ bills of manumission are equal in [the requirement] about those who carry and bring. This is one of the aspects in which bills of divorce, have the same rules as bills of manumission.

As it was stated: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was not written and signed in his presence, he returns the bill to its place of origin, presents it to a court and has its signatures notarized. Then he does not have so say, ‘it was written and signed before me’, but he says, ‘I am deputized by the court.’ ”

As it was stated: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was not written and signed in his presence, he returns the bill to its place of origin, presents it to a court and has its signatures notarized. Then he does not have so say, ‘it was written and signed before me’, but he says, ‘I am deputized by the court.’ ”