Explanation: This does not mean that there was a total change in the name, as stated earlier (34b). Similarly, the change of his or her city is not a total change, but rather a matter of the city being called two different names in two different places.

Opinion: This is referring specifically to the city where they live. However, regarding the city where he was born, even if there is a change it is valid, being that one does not have to write the name of this city at all.

The early ones commonly wrote the city of birth in a Get in order that if there was another Yosef ben Shimon, there will be a sign which one the Get is referring to based on the place of birth.

A proof that this is correct is that many times the name of the birthplace is written because the husband or wife state the name of the birthplace. If a change in the birthplace makes the Get invalid, it would only be correct to write the name based on witnesses (who tell us the name).

Implied Question: This is unlike the case in Yevamos (39b) where it became known to Beis Din, even from a relative or a woman (who are unfit for testimony). (Note: We see there that we do rely upon a woman or relative to give critical information. It is therefore possible that here, too, we rely on the man or woman to give us the name of their birthplace even though it will invalidate the Get if they get it wrong.)

Answer#1: The Gemara there is talking about information that is easy to clarify, and will eventually become very clear. (Note: We therefore do not require regular testimony.)

Answer#2: Additionally, the case where Beis Din is informed by people unfit to testify is where they have to state what happened in order that she should not become an Agunah. However, in our Gemara, why should we institute that people unfit to testify can tell us the name of the birthplace? In this way the Get can become invalid if they make a mistake! It must therefore be that even if the name of the birthplace was totally changed, the Get is still valid.

Opinion: Rabeinu Chananel brought proof that a document does not become invalid if something in it that was not required was changed.

The Gemara states in Kesuvos (24b) that we do not raise someone's status from the fact that his lineage is described in a document (i.e. as a Kohen) to make him in fact have that status. The testimony in the document is not on everything in the document, but rather on the Manah (i.e. money) discussed in the document. The testimony is not on the fact that it is written there that he is a Kohen.

We see from here that even if he is not a Kohen, the document is valid. It is indeed logical that the witnesses only testify on the actual incident (about which they are asked to testify, not on every detail in the document).

Observation: There was an incident with someone who indeed changed the name of his birthplace, and the Ri said the Get was still valid.

Many times when they did not clearly know the name of the birthplace, the Ri would say not to write it at all.

One also does not have to write exactly where he (the husband) is currently standing. This is evident from the fact that all Gitin that come from overseas do not have written in them where the woman was standing. This is why the Mishnah does not discuss the husband and a case where he changed the name of the place where he was standing, as the Mishnah does note regarding a Sofer. This is because it is obvious that one does not have to write the place where he is standing.

Question: Don't we say in Avodah Zarah (10a) that in exile we only count based on the Greek Kingdom? This implies that we are not worried about good relations with the country where the document is being written!

Answer: The Ri says that only regarding Gitin do we have to be careful to maintain peaceful relations with the government. This is because they are stringent regarding a Get which is a document of important nature, as it separates between a man and his wife.

Explanation: The Ri says that these two places are close to each other. This is as the Gemara states in Beitzah (25b) that Rav Huna was carried from Shili to Hini and from Hini to Shili. This implies that they were close to each other.

These examples (of cities) are given to teach us that even though this is not such a lie, being that one can technically go from one to another in one day, one should be stringent (to write exactly where he is).

Opinion: The Ri states that even though when it comes to Gitin we will invalidate the Get if he was in the east and he writes that he was in the west, and the witnesses should not sign on such a Get, regarding other types of documents if he writes Shili instead of Hini the document is valid.

This is as stated in Sanhedrin (32a) that if a document was written on the first of Nisan during Shemitah, and witnesses testified that the witnesses who signed the document were with them on that day somewhere else, the document is still valid. This is because we suspect that the witnesses might have seen the transaction earlier, and only wrote the document later (in the new place where they were on the first of Nisan, but they recorded the place where the transaction took place). This implies that even though a person was not in the city on the day written in the document, the document is still valid.

However, the Ri says, people who usually write a Kesuvah in a different city than where the Chupah is going to take place, even though the scribe is not going to be at the Chupah on that day, are not acting appropriately. Lechatchilah one must be careful even when writing other documents, as Rav Safra said to the scribes that when you are sitting in Hini etc.

Question: However, this is difficult to the Ri. In Bava Basra (160a), the Gemara implies that Gitin written later are valid, as the Gemara says that a Get that is tied and has its witnesses inside of it (i.e. the fold of the document) is valid. This is because he can make it a regular Get. This would make the Get postdated, as when a Get is tied we count one year of a king as two years. (Note: It is therefore dated a year later for a regular Get, and yet it is still valid.)

Additionally, in Yevamos (52a) the Gemara states that if a person tells a scribe to write that when I will marry her I will divorce her, the Get is valid even though he wrote at the time when he did Airusin the time when the marriage will be over.

If so, why in our Gemara do we declare invalid a Get where the scribe was in the east and he wrote he was in the west? If people will see the scribe was not in the city on the day when the Get was written they will merely say he wrote the Get early!

It is difficult to say that a Get that is postdated is always invalid, and in the case where the Get is tied and the witnesses are inside the Gemara is not talking about a woman's Get, but rather a regular document (also sometimes called a Get). It is similarly difficult to say that when the person says that when he marries her he will divorce her he is doing so on the day of the wedding right before the wedding (and accordingly the date is correct). It would not be omitted in all of these places that a Get that is postdated is invalid.

Answer#1: Perhaps a Get that is postdated is only valid if eventually, on the day that it is written, the scribe and witnesses arrive in that city.

Answer#2: Additionally, it is possible to answer that a postdated Get is certainly valid when the place where they are standing is written, even though when the date on the document arrives the scribe and witnesses will not be there. People will understand that they postdated the document and wrote it earlier. However, if he was in the east and he wrote he was in the west, meaning that he is not writing where he is presently standing, the document is invalid as it appears like falsehood.

Additionally, sometimes it will be known that he did not postdate the document, causing people to think that he wrote it after the date (which is clearly invalid). (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that Tosfos is merely widening and strengthening this suspicion. He apparently means that if we allow such a Get, when people know he was not there afterwards, they will think that he dated (and possibly wrote parts of) the document after it happened.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is referring to the Mishnah's law that if the wrong kingdom is written in a Get it is invalid due to maintaining good relations with the kingdom (where it is written).

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. If so, this argues on an earlier statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel (80a-b) who said that the Chachamim hold that even if a Get was only written for the clerk (who keeps the records) of the city she is divorced. This implies that she is divorced and can remarry Lechatchilah, even though it wasn't written for a specific kingdom. If so, how can we write in Gitin the years from the creation of the world (instead of writing the kingdom)? We hold like Rav regarding prohibitions, and according to him it is forbidden to divorce with such a Get Lechatchilah!

According to the Sefarim that have a text earlier that Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav (not Shmuel) etc., there is a contradiction in Rav, which would cause us to answer that there are two different Amoraim who understood Rav in different ways.

Answer: Rebbi Elchanan answers that there is no difficulty here. A Get written for the clerk of the city is more likely to be valid, as he is part of the kingdom of the city. However, if the Get is written for another kingdom, it is forbidden to use it to divorce and the child from a second marriage using this Get is only legitimate b'Dieved.

Being that Rebbi Meir requires an important kingdom, he says that the Chachamim understand that even the clerk of the city, who is less than this (not even a kingdom but merely part of the city administration) causes the divorce to be valid, being that he is from that kingdom. This is better than naming a different kingdom altogether.

The reason we write "(number of years) from the creation of the world," is because today there is no institution to write in the Get the name of the kingdom in order to have good relations with the kingdom. Even the Nochrim no longer do so. However, in the times of the Chachamim they did used to count the years by the kings. This is as stated in Bava Basra (164b) that the custom of this nation is that if a king has ruled for a year it is counted (when recording documents based on the king's rule) as if he has ruled for two years. This means that they would write in their documents that he ruled two years in order to honor the king, to indicate that he has ruled for a longer time (i.e. longer than he actually had).

Rabeinu Yosef says that now the kingdom's are not stringent (that people should write their documents based on the years they rule), and therefore we do not write the years of a king's rule in our documents.

You should know that this is true, as Rebbi Meir agrees that if they write in the document that it is for the rule (of Baschar, who was a servant of the king) it is valid, as the kingdom does not care.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that, "These are the words of Rebbi Meir etc.," is not referring to the law regarding mentioning the kingdom in a Get to have peaceful relations with one's host country. Rather it is referring to the case in the Mishnah where he was in the east and wrote he was in the west.

However, if it has a different kingdom in it one can use it to divorce Lechatchilah according to the Rabbanan. This does not argue on Rav Yehudah's earlier statement. When he said that she is divorced, he means that she can be divorced with it Lechatchilah, even if it is written regarding the city clerk which is denigrating. Certainly nowadays it is permitted to write "from the creation of the world," which is not denigrating at all, as people are not jealous about this.

Observation: We hold like the Chachamim, even though the Tana wrote his opinion according to Rebbi Meir.

Even so, being that it asks earlier, "And because of peace with the kingdom the child would be a Mamzer?" And the Gemara answers, "Yes, Rebbi Meir is based on his reasoning etc." The Gemara similarly says earlier (5b), "Being that he did not say, "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." we should say that he should send her away and the child is a Mamzer?" The Gemara answers, "Yes, Rebbi Meir is based on his reasoning etc." This (the fact that the Gemara keeps being astounded by Rebbi Meir's laws) implies that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Meir (as this implies that the Gemara does not agree with them).

Now it is understandable why the Gemara says that another proof is that the Chachamim admit to Rebbi Meir in a case where the scribe changed his name and the name of his wife, but it did not add the case of "he was in the east..." which is similar. (Note: Tosfos is referring to (d) above.)

Question: However, there is a difficulty with Rabeinu Tam's explanation. Later (86a), the Gemara asks regarding the list of three Gitin that are invalid, "Aren't there others? What about peaceful relations with the king (i.e. not writing the correct kingdom)?" The Gemara answers, "There, the child is a Mamzer. Here, the child is kosher (not a Mamzer)." The Gemara continues, "This is understandable according to Rebbi Meir. However, according to the Rabbanan who say that the child is kosher, what is there to say?" This implies that when there is a mistake regarding the kingdom the child is only not a Mamzer b'Dieved. However, Lechatchilah one could not use such a Get.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam's text in the Gemara later (86a), and a similar text is found in Rabeinu Chananel, is "What about peaceful relations with the king etc.?" The Gemara is not asking from the case of peaceful relations with the king, but rather (is focusing on the "etc.") on the next case regarding when the scribe was in the east and he wrote that he was in the west.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that if they are married we make a decree that people might suspect that the Yavam did Chalitzah to one wife (who was later not found to be a wife of his dead brother at all), and someone else married another and then divorced her. This would mean that he returned his Chalutzah (if we would allow the Yavam to marry one of the other wives that were divorced from their second husbands). However, if she was simply promiscuous people would not suspect that she is a Chalutzah.

Question#1: The Ri has difficulty with this. What does the Gemara mean later when it says that she would be confused with a woman whose husband went overseas? (Note: We decree that if a woman is told her husband died overseas and she remarried, after which her husband actually came back alive from overseas, she must get divorced and is forbidden from both. Even though she should not halachically be forbidden from her first husband as she was a victim of forced circumstance, we decree that people will confuse this with someone who returns their divorcee after she already married someone else.) This decree is indeed applicable to her! Yet, the term "confused" implies that here this does not apply.

Question#2: Additionally, according to the second version of the Gemara that marriage and promiscuity have the same law in this case, why does the Gemara think that this applies to promiscuity if the decree regarding a woman whose husband went overseas clearly only applies to marriage?

Question#3: Additionally, why doesn't the Gemara in Yevamos (92a) deduce regarding the case where a woman was told that her husband died and she remarried that this only applies if she remarried, not if she was promiscuous, as our Gemara does?

Opinion#2: The Ri says that if a Shomeres Yavam (woman waiting for Yibum or Chalitzah) who was promiscuous is permitted to her Yavam, unlike the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, we also should not apply the decree that if she remarries people might say that the Yavam did Chalitzah to one wife, someone else married another and then divorced her, meaning that he returned his Chalutzah. This is because if she was promiscuous on purpose (without remarrying) she does not become forbidden.

This is stated in Yevamos (94a) regarding someone whose wife went overseas. A woman whose husband went overseas cannot have her husband "remarry her" when he comes back if she became forbidden on purpose. Accordingly, even if she accidentally remarried (because she was told her husband was dead) the Rabbanan decreed that she cannot remain married to her husband, as people might say that one person (second husband) divorced his wife and her original husband is taking her back.

The Gemara means as follows. This is the law if she marries, as implied by the fact that the Mishnah didn't say she was promiscuous, which would have implied that this is true in both cases. The fact that only marrying was mentioned implies that this is not correct if she was promiscuous, as she may become mixed up with a woman whose husband went overseas etc.

However, this decree indeed does not apply to her (a Shomeres Yavam who was promiscuous on purpose) as she does not become forbidden if she is promiscuous on purpose. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah means this applies if she was married and if she was promiscuous. Being that she becomes prohibited to the Yavam through promiscuity alone, as is the position of Rav Hamnuna, we also decree that if she remarries she should become forbidden as people might say that one person (second husband) divorced his wife and her original husband is taking her back.

Some say that this applies if she was married and if she was promiscuous. According to this, the reasoning that people might say that one person divorced his wife etc. does not apply. This is why it says that this should be a proof to Rav Hamnuna. If she is still permitted to him if she is promiscuous, we should not make a decree regarding her if she remarried (unless Rav Hamnuna is correct).

The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that even though there is no reason to make a decree, one can still confuse this with a case of a woman whose husband went overseas etc.

Implied Question: It could also have pushed this aside by saying that this is according to Rebbi Akiva who considers negative prohibitions tantamount to transgressions of Arayos (i.e. regarding Mamzerus), and Rav Hamnuna's opinion is like that of the Rabbanan. We find a similar way to push aside a question in Sotah (18b). (Note: Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara has a better answer that we do not even have to say it is only according to Rebbi Akiva, and even so there is no proof to Rav Hamnuna.

Opinion#3: However, Rabeinu Yehudah found in the Tosefta that it states regarding our Mishnah that these are the words of Rebbi Meir who said them in the name of Rebbi Akiva. This implies that our Mishnah indeed is unlike the Rabbanan. According to this, our Mishnah is arguing on the position commonly held by our Gemara (that only Chayvei Krisus count as Arayos transgressions regarding Mamzerus and forbidding people etc.).

Implied Question: One cannot deduce from here that we write a receipt (instead of either tearing up the document and writing a new one, or giving the borrower the option not to pay back until a better option can be found than writing a receipt, see Rashi in Kesuvos 89a, DH "Shema Minah"). (Note: Why not?)

Answer: In cases where it is impossible otherwise everyone agrees we write a receipt, as stated in Kesuvos (89b).