Explanation: Rashi explains that the Chachamim would not be helping with their decree (of mandating that the date be on a Get). This is both regarding the suspicion that she might be unfaithful and regarding her seizing fruits (of her possessions that the husband sold) from the date that the Get was written.

Even though Reish Lakish said previously that the husband has the right to the fruits until the signing of the Get, here he agrees that the husband has the rights until it is actually given, being that if they make peace he will be appeased (and not divorce her).

Question#1: However, the next question in the Gemara regarding from overseas, that Rashi explains is a question on both Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan, is slightly difficult. Why shouldn't he lose the fruits from the time of the signing according to Reish Lakish, being that if she would be present he would have divorced her right away?

Question#2: Additionally, the Ri asks, when the Gemara asks what the Chachamim accomplished with their decree, it implies that now there is the same suspicion as if there would not have to be a date written in the Get in the first place. This is incorrect, as when there is no date we suspect that the woman should not lose, while here our suspicion is not that the woman will lose, but that she will seize fruits from the buyers (of fruits from her husband) incorrectly.

Opinion: The Ri answers that these two questions are solely according to the opinion that one might cover up (for his niece's infidelity). However, according to the opinion that this is because fruits might be seized inappropriately there is no question. This is because the buyers (from the husband) indeed should lose any fruits they purchased from the time of the signing.

Explanation: Rashi explains that she needs to prove when she received the Get.

Question: This is difficult. Regarding a case where she was unfaithful, even though we know she did not receive the Get on the day it was written (as it came from overseas) he could still cover up for her. He could say that he gave it to her before she was unfaithful, and the law will come out the same as before they instituted that a date should be written in a Get. (Note: She cannot be killed, as we do not know if she was divorced when she had the affair (see Tosfos 17b, DH "Gazyei").)

Answer: The Ri answers that it becomes known. When the date written on the Get is clearly before the Get was given over, it becomes known, and people make a point of finding out the exact day it was given over.

Question: In a Get that comes from overseas, why did they institute that the date had to be written (if in any event people would have to ascertain when it was given on their own)?

Answer: The mandated date causes people to investigate when the Get was given, as they see from the date that it is not the same date as when it was given.

Question: According to the opinion that says that this (instituting the date in a Get) is because he will cover up for his niece, why do we write the date in Gitin nowadays? The Gemara implies that even today (when the death penalty is not administered by Beis Din) the date is required, as the Mishnah states later (86a) regarding three Gitin that are invalid.

Answer#1: The decree is that he might want to cover up her promiscuity to ensure her children are not labeled Mamzerim.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Beis Hamikdash should be rebuilt speedily in our days.

Answer#3: Alternatively, this is in order that people should not say that she was (only) promiscuous after she was divorced, and he should therefore still remarry her. Indeed, a divorcee who is promiscuous may still remarry her first husband as is stated in Sotah (18b). (Note: In contrast, if she married someone else she may no longer remarry her first husband.)

Explanation: Even though she needs to wait for three months, it is not because we suspect that he might have relations with her during that time, as we do not suspect an "old Get" (in this case). Rather it is as said previously, people might say that "two women from one courtyard (i.e. marriage) etc."

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explains that he (the husband) went on his way.

Tosfos' Explanation: He did not have to give this explanation. Rather, the Gemara is even talking about a case where he is in the city. The Beraisa gave a case where he gave the Get to a third party in order to include that even if he is in the city she is permitted to marry immediately, and we do not suspect an "old Get." Earlier, the Beraisa gave a case of someone who sent a Get in order to include that even when he is not in the city she must wait three months.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with the following statement of the Gemara in Kesuvos (55a). The Gemara states that the conditions added onto a standard kesuvah are considered like the kesuvah itself regarding shemitah (the non-standard terms added to the kesuvah are also not nullified by shemitah). (Note: The Gemara there cites many other topics regarding where the added conditions are dealt with like the kesuvah itself.)

Why does the Gemara say that the reason that the additions to the kesuvah are not nullified by shemitah are because they are like the kesuvah itself, which is an act of Beis Din? The reason that shemitah should not affect both the kesuvah and the conditions of the kesuvah is because it is like the wages of a worker and credit owed to a store. There is an opinion in Shevi'is (10:1) that shemitah only takes away a regular loan, and certainly a kesuvah and the additions to the kesuvah (would not be included).

It is difficult to say that this is like Rebbi Yosi who argues there, and says that these things are taken away by shemitah.

Answer: The Ri says that when the Gemara in Kesuvos (55a) says that the additional conditions are like the kesuvah itself regarding shemitah, it means that she demanded and made her Kesuvah into a loan according to Rav or did one of the two according to Shmuel. In such a case, it even takes away the added conditions to the kesuvah. (Note: Our Gemara is only referring to the regular part of the kesuvah.)

Implied Question: "Knas" -- "A fine" refers to Motzi Shem Ra (a person who claims that his newly married wife was found not to be a virgin, implying she must have been promiscuous, when in fact she was a virgin). (Note: Why does the Beraisa specifically call this "a fine" and not any of the other types of damages listed here, as they are also fines?)

Answer: The Beraisa calls this "a fine" because it only consists of a single fine. However, rape (while also bearing the penalty of a fine) has the additional fines of "Boshes" -- "embarrassment" and "P'gam" -- "blemish."

Explanation: A ruling of Beis Din is the same as (it is written in) a document. We state in many places regarding a ruling of Beis Din that one can therefore collect from properties with a lien. (Note: For example, the Gemara in Bava Metzia (15a) discusses a case where a person stole a field with fruit. When the victim claims his fruit, he would not normally be able to collect properties that the thief sold in lieu of the value of the fruit. However, the Gemara says that if the thief was already brought to trial and found guilty, the victim would be able to collect money from any property he sold after the verdict. This is because a ruling of Beis Din becomes known to people, and therefore any buyer of property from the thief is now doing so at his own risk.)

Observation: There are places where they are accustomed to writing the Kesuvah on Erev Shabbos and to sign it on Motzei Shabbos.

Opinion: It is not appropriate to do so because of the added conditions of the Kesuvah, as they perhaps do not become known.

However, where a Kinyan was made (on Erev Shabbos) there is no reason to suspect that it is invalid, as we say in Bava Basra (172a) that (Rabah bar Rav Shilo said) if you know when the Kinyan was made, write that as the date in the document.

Explanation: When they are discussing the topic continuously, it becomes known to people as if they signed already (during the day when the document was written down), being that they are ready to sign, as explained earlier.

Implied Question: One should not ask that in cases of Gitin that come from overseas or someone who gives a Get to a third party to give to his wife, why don't we suspect that they made up. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: Here we are more suspicious, because the Get is not yet signed, and when they make up no one will know about it. Additionally, in a case where he tells ten people to sign and that two people should sign on the day it is written (brought later in our Gemara), they often make up, as not everyone who needs to sign has signed yet. In such a case, this does not become known to people. However, when all of the witnesses already signed on a Get and it is ready to be given, it is not normal that the husband will be appeased. If he is appeased, everyone will realize that this has happened.

Question: However, the Gemara later (29b) is difficult. The Gemara discusses someone who sent a Get to his wife and told the messenger not to give it to her for thirty days. The Gemara asks, why don't we suspect that they made up? The Gemara asks the same question on the case where someone gives a Get to his wife on condition that he does not return within twelve months.

Rashi there explains that when someone sends a Get from overseas, there is no suspicion that he was appeased (not to give the Get). This is because the husband reasons that the messenger already got to his wife and gave her the Get. He therefore will not change his mind because it is doubtful whether it will even help. However, even according to Rashi the question still stands when someone gives a third party a Get. This is also difficult to reconcile with Rebbi Yochanan's opinion in our Gemara (that we do not suspect that he was appeased).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam understands that if someone gives a Get to a third party when he is in the same city as his wife, and he does not leave the city, he is presumably doing so because they are fighting. He only dates the Get in order to pain her, not to be appeased. However, in the cases later where he leaves the city, he presumably has her best interests in mind, and does not want her to become unable to marry because of him. In such a case, we suspect that he indeed might come to be appeased, and if this will happen people will not find out about it, as he is not divorcing her because they are fighting. In this case even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that we should suspect that he was appeased.

Explanation: We suspect that he perhaps was secluded with her, and the Get is therefore an "old Get."

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam does not agree that this is correct. Later (76b), the Gemara says that we do not suspect an old Get, as he was not secluded with her. The Gemara asks, why don't we suspect that he was appeased? This implies that these are two different suspicions (being appeased and being secluded).

Question#2: Additionally, why should the Gemara ask that perhaps they made up and the Get is therefore an "old Get?" The Gemara there is discussing the Mishnah that discusses a person who says, "This is your Get as long as I will not pass before your face for thirty days," or "This is your Get if I do not come back for twelve months." Being that if he comes to town, the Get is invalid without him even being secluded with her, why would the Gemara ask that the Get should be an old Get? (Note: It is invalid anyway!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that our Gemara's suspicion that the husband may be appeased, as well as the appeasement mentioned in the Gemara later (29b), mean that perhaps the husband was appeased and he therefore verbally nullified the Get. The Gemara here is talking about a case where he instructed the witnesses to sign within ten days or immediately, and they did not sign within this time period. When the Get was signed, the husband was not even present. This is why we suspect that the husband was appeased, and he therefore nullified the messengers. This means they signed the Get without the husband's knowledge.

However, if he told them to sign after ten days the Get is valid. Even if the Get was previously nullified, we hold like Rav Nachman who says later (32b) that one can go back and divorce with this same Get. (Note: The Get being nullified merely means that the messenger cannot currently give the Get. It does not reflect on the validity of the Get itself.)

However, regarding the case, "If I did not come within etc.," the Gemara does not mean to say that perhaps he was appeased and nullified the Get verbally. Being that he said, "(This is your Get) From now, if I do not come etc." and he did not come, the Get is indeed considered valid from now, even though he later nullified it.

Rather, the husband in this case is appeased and arrived back, causing the Get to be nullified. Being appeased is mentioned as it is the reason that he is coming back (which automatically nullifies the Get). The Gemara answers that the case is where he says that she is believed to say that he didn't come, to the extent that even if I did come, if she will say that I did not come it will be a Get.

Question#1: Rashi is difficult. Why does the Gemara answer that he believes her to say that he did not come? Why is it relevant? Whether or not he believes her, we should suspect that he arrived!

Question#2: However, Rabeinu Tam's explanation is also difficult. The Gemara answered regarding the case where the Get is valid if he did not pass by her for thirty days that the case is where he believes her to say that he did not come. We should therefore still suspect that he nullified the Get, being that he did not say "from now" and the Get is not valid until he is away from her for thirty days (see (d) ii. above). If within that time he nullified the Get, the Get is invalid.

Answer: The Ri understands that we do not suspect he appeased her, but rather we suspect that the husband will start rumors that he nullified the Get. The Gemara is therefore answering well when it says that he says he believes her etc. Being that he believes her, he will clearly not try to start rumors, as he will be embarrassed. The Gemara now is giving a good answer according to Rashi as well. The fact that the suspicion is merely the husband starting a rumor is also implied by Rashi's explanation, as Rashi mentioned in his explanation of the question of the Gemara that the husband would complain about the Get.

Explanation: The signature would take place when all of the witnesses are present, as the Gemara said earlier (10b) that the witnesses of the Get cannot sign without each other.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Makos (6a) says that we ask the witnesses (who are relatives), "did you intend to merely see the event or did you intend to testify?" (Note: Why don't we ask this question to the people signed on the Get?)

Answer: We do not ask this question to these witnesses as it is obvious that they signed because the husband told them to (as witnesses).

Question: Why is this different from a "Get Mekushar" (a tied Get, where a witness must sign on each fold), about which the Gemara later (82a) states that a relative can sign either at the beginning, middle, or end of the Get?

Answer: A Get Mekushar is different, as it must have a minimum of three witnesses, and two of them must be kosher and signed on the Get for the purpose of giving testimony. Therefore, people will not come to mix this up with a regular Get (or type of testimony on a document). However, here where only two witnesses are required for the testimony, people will say that the first two are certainly for testimony, and they will come to mix this up with other testimony (and will permit relatives to sign together).

Question: However, this is difficult. Chizkiya says that if the Get Mekushar was full of relatives it is still kosher. The Gemara later (87b) clearly implies that Chizkiya's statement was said regarding filling two lines that were distanced from the writing. (Note: This means that it is possible to have two lines full of invalid witnesses after the writing, and the kosher witnesses are below those signatures. People will certainly think that unkosher witnesses are valid!)

Answers#1: Rabeinu Tam says that because the witnesses of a Get do not sign without each other, people will think that the first ones to sign are the main testimony, as they signed before the other witnesses (who know this, as they were present for the signature). However, regarding other documents (where there is no such law that they must sign in front of each other), when people see that relatives signed on the Get, they will say that the people that he found first were made to sign first, or that they signed afterwards to fill in the document.

Answers#2: Additionally, Rabeinu Tam answers, even the opinion that says this is invalid will only say so if the invalid witnesses signed first. However, if they signed in the middle or end of all of the witnesses, nobody will come to mix this up.

Implied Question: The Tosefta quoted in Bava Basra (162b) states that if there was four or five witnesses signed on a document, and the first two were found to be relatives or invalid witnesses, the testimony (in the document) can still be valid based on the kosher witnesses. This is the text of the Tosefta. (Note: This implies that even if the first two witnesses were relatives or invalid the document can still be considered kosher, unlike Rabeinu Tam's second answers above.)

Answers: Rabeinu Tam answers that the Tosefta specifically stated the "first two" in order to tell us that even though they seem to be the main body of the testimony, the document is kosher. (Note: The Gemara later explains that there are some who hold that even where these witnesses sign first, the document stays kosher. There are also those who say it is invalid.) Certainly if the middle signatories or last signatories were found to be relatives or invalid for testimony, the testimony can be upheld by the rest of the witnesses (according to this opinion).

Question: The Ri does not agree with Rabeinu Tam. If two relatives can sign on a document at any point, why don't we suspect that the verification of the document will be done with two relatives, or one relative and one kosher witness?

We cannot say that the verification is not done unless all of the people signing on the document are verified. (Note: The argument to say this would be as follows.) Even though a Get Mekushar can be verified by any three witnesses signed on it, that is because the Rabbanan required a person to sign on every tie. They therefore did not require him to have each witnesses' signature verified. However, in this case where the additional signatures are optional, all of the signatures must be validated.

This is because we say in Bava Basra (163b) that only if there are two empty lines between the signature of the witnesses and the rest of the document is the document invalid. However, even a space of one empty line between the signature of the witnesses and the verification causes a document to be invalid. The Gemara asks, why don't we also suspect that this distance (one line) between the witnesses' signatures and the document should make the document invalid? We should suspect that he wrote a different statement with the signatures of other witnesses on that empty line, and he will say that the signatories below were additional witnesses (explaining why they are on another line). (Note: He can then verify the document by producing people who recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the bottom line, though they never witnessed what he ended up writing!) The Gemara answers, in such a case (when there are witnesses on the same line as the statements made in the document, and witnesses underneath, the document must be verified from the witnesses on the top line, not the witnesses of the bottom line.

This implies that we generally say the verification of any two witnesses from the document can validly verify the document. If all of the signatures must be verified, the Gemara would not have asked its question (as the statement would end up being verified by the witnesses who signed on it, as the signatures of all four witnesses would have to be verified).

Retraction: Rabeinu Tam retracted his previous answer. He explained instead, as did the Halachos Gedolos, that the Beraisa specifically said that the first two witnesses were the relatives etc. We assume that they signed just for the honor of signing, or to fill up the space. This is why the document is valid via the other kosher witnesses who signed. However, if there is one witness who signed in the middle or he was one of the last to sign, the testimony is invalid, as he certainly signed for the purpose of testimony (and not to fill up the space or just for honor).

The Gemara in Bava Basra (163b) says that in such a case the verification is not done from the witnesses on the bottom of the document. It is only done from the witnesses on the top. However, normally (when the first line of witnesses is not on the same line as the body of the document) we say that the verification must be done from the witnesses signed on the bottom of the document. The one who says that this is valid here, only says it is valid when the witnesses (who were invalid) signed first. However, if they signed at the end, everyone agrees the document is invalid.

Question: According to the opinion that the owner of the document's purpose in having them sign is that they should be witnesses, and they sign because he said so, why do we say regarding other documents that the witnesses signed to fill up the document (and not to testify)? Why don't we ask them why they signed, just as we ask there (in Makos 6a) did you intend to merely see (these events, or to testify)?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that a document is different, as witnesses signed on a document are considered as if their testimony was already investigated by Beis Din. (Note: See Maharam Shif regarding why Tosfos earlier (DH "Ee Nami") asked a similar question yet gave a different answer.)