(Rav): If a document and the signatures are both on erased parchment, it is valid.

Question: Perhaps he will take such a (signed) document, erase the text, and write a new text!

Answer: If he does, the place of the text will have been erased twice. It looks different that parchment erased once, and the forgery will be evident.

Question: Perhaps he will write a document on erased parchment, put ink underneath, erase it, and have the witnesses sign;

When he later erases (and rewrites) the text, the text and the signatures will both be on parchment that was erased twice!

Answer (Abaye): Rav holds that witnesses will not sign on erased parchment unless it was erased in front of them (and looks like the rest of the document).

Question (Beraisa): If a document is on clear parchment and the signatures are on erased parchment, it is valid.

Perhaps he will erase the text, and write a new text (Rav allows a document if the text and signatures are both on parchment erased once)!

Answer: If witnesses sign on erased parchment and the text is on clear parchment, the witnesses write this.

Question: If they write it below their signatures, the bearer could cut it off. If they write it above their signatures, the bearer could erase it!

Answer: They write this between the signatures.

Question (end of the Beraisa): If the text is on erased parchment and the signatures are on clear parchment, it is invalid.

The witnesses should write this, and the document should be valid!

Suggestion: We are concerned lest the bearer erase the text and write a new text.

Rejection: We said that parchment erased twice is recognizably different than parchment erased once!

Answer: When part of a parchment was erased twice and another part was erased once, this is recognizable. Here, part was erased twice, and part is clear (so it is not evident that the text was erased twice).

Question: We should take a clear parchment, erase it, and compare it to the text!

Answer: Different parchments look different when they are erased.

Question: After validating the signatures, we should erase them, and see if it resembles the text!

Answer #1 (R. Hoshaya): Parchment erased today looks different than parchment erased yesterday.

[Objection: We can leave it around (until it looks like parchment erased some days ago, and compare it)! Tosfos - some texts delete this, for there will still be a difference between the parchments.]

Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): We are concerned lest Beis Din err (and not wait).]

(Mishnah - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): If witnesses signed on the inside of a tied Get (it is valid, because it can be converted to a standard Get).

Objection (Rebbi): The dates of standard Gitin and tied Gitin are written differently!

A standard Get is dated according to the true year of the king's reign. In a tied Get, the date is written a year more than his actual reign.

Perhaps Reuven borrowed money with a tied Get, and when he paid, Shimon said 'I do not have the document to return it', and instead gave a receipt;

Later, Shimon will make it a standard Get, and its date is after the receipt (showing that Reuven did not repay this loan, rather, a previous loan)!

Answer: R. Chanina ben Gamliel holds that we do not write receipts. (Reuven will not pay until Shimon finds the document.)

Question: Did Rebbi really understand tied Gitin?

A tied Get was brought in front of Rebbi. He said 'it is postdated.'

Zunin (a Chacham): This is the custom. In a tied Get, the date is written a year more than the king's actual reign.

Answer: After Zunin explained to him, he understood.

A standard Get was dated 'in the year of (King) Ploni Archan' (this will be explained).

(R. Chanina): It was written in his first year (then he is called Archan). The lien starts from then.

Question: Perhaps Archan means that he has reigned for a long time (and the lien starts only this year)!

Answer (R. Hoshaya): The custom is, the first year he is called Archan. The second year he is called Digun.

Question: Perhaps the king was deposed and reinstated (without our knowledge), and the Get says Archan because it was in the first year he was reinstated (but we think that the lien is from the first year he ever reigned)!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): In such a case, he is called Archan Digun.

(Beraisa - Sumchus): If a man accepted Nezirus 'Heina' this means once. 'Digun', 'Trigun', 'Tetrigun' and 'Pentigun' mean, respectively, two, three, four and five times.

(Beraisa): A house that is round, three sided or five sided does not receive Tum'as Tzara'as. A four sided house receives Tzara'as.

Question: What is the source of this?

(Beraisa): It does not say 'Kir', rather, "b'Kiros". This teaches about two walls. Also later in the Parshah it says "b'Kiros".

A tied Get was brought in front of Rebbi. He said 'it is not dated'!

R. Shimon bar Rebbi: Perhaps it is covered between the folds.

Rebbi unfolded it and saw the date. Rebbi looked cross (because the date was so concealed; alternatively, Rebbi preferred standard Gitin).

R. Shimon: I did not write it. Yehudah the scribe wrote it.

Rebbi: Do not speak Lashon ha'Ra!

Rebbi once praised a Sefer Tehilim. His son Shimon said 'I did not write it. Yehudah the scribe wrote it.'

Rebbi: Do not speak Lashon ha'Ra!

Question: Granted, regarding the tied Get, it was Lashon ha'Ra to say that Yehudah wrote it;

Why was it Lashon ha'Ra to say that he wrote the Sefer Tehilim?

Answer (Rav Dimi, brother of Rav Safra): One should not speak favorably of another, lest he (R. Gershom - others) come to speak to his detriment.

(Rav Amram): There are three transgressions that (almost all) people transgress every day: thought of (sexual) transgression, Iyun in prayer (Rashbam - feeling that he is worthy to be answered; Tosfos - lack of concentration), and Lashon ha'Ra.

Objection: People do not speak Lashon ha'Ra every day!

Correction: Rather, they transgress Avak Lashon ha'Ra (a statement that can be understood positively or negatively).

(Rav Yehudah): Most people transgress theft (laws of buying and selling), a minority of people have Bi'ah with Arayos, and (virtually) everyone transgresses Lashon ha'Ra.

Objection: Not everyone transgresses Lashon ha'Ra!

Correction: Rather, they transgress Avak Lashon ha'Ra.