More Discussions for this daf
1. Using Father's Name as a Siman 2. Signing As "Ben Ish Ploni" On A Get 3. Why did Naftali name his first son Yachtze'el?
4. Using Father's Name as a Siman
DAF DISCUSSIONS - GITIN 87

Yehoshua asks:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=19&daf=87b&format=pdf

If someone writes on a get (when they are siging as an eid)

"ben ish ploni eid" then it's kosher.

So for example I wrote "ben Yaakov" (if my fathers name would be yaakov) then it's good. What about if I have 5 brothers? How do we know it's not them that signed?

As well I'm assuming all of this is if there is only one "Yaakov" in the whole town?

Yehoshua, Yerushalayim, Eretz Yisrael

The Kollel replies:

1. We can understand this matter better if we look at the Gemara in Gitin 36a. The Mishnah (34b) states that the witnesses sign on the Get because of Tikun ha'Olam. This is because mid'Oraisa, according to Rebbi Eliezer, "Edei Mesirah Kartei" -- the witnesses who observe the handing over of the Get are the ones who effect the annulment of the marriage bond between the man and woman. The only reason why witnesses are required to sign the Get at all is so that in the event of the death of the witnesses, there will still be valid proof to the divorce.

2. The Gemara on 36a cites a Beraisa that says that even according to Rebbi Meir, who says that the witnesses who sign on the Get are the crucial ones, nevertheless the original practice was that he would write, "I, so-and-so, signed as a witness." Rashi writes that he did not even write his name. If there was a specimen of the writing of the witness from elsewhere, the Get was valid but otherwise it was invalid. Raban Gamliel said that to make things easier a "great enactment" was made that the witnesses should write their names in the Get.

3. The Ya'avetz, printed at the back of the Gemara, writes that the witness certainly did not literally write "so-and-so" but rather he wrote his name alone. Since there might be lots of people with the same name Yosef in that place, people would not know who the witness was. The Takanah of Raban Gamliel was that he should also write his father's name or give some other identifying description (for example, his height, or that he is a Kohen, etc.). The Ya'avetz concludes that this is what we must say according to Rashi, but he adds that he does not understand the matter properly.

4. However, the Rashash writes that the Tosefta (Gitin 7:11) supports the simple reading of Rashi. The Tosefta states,

"'I, a witness, have signed as a witness.' If there is a specimen of his handwriting from elsewhere, then the Get is valid but otherwise it is invalid. Raban Gamliel said that they made a great enactment that the witnesses should write their names in the Get."

5. I think that if we look at the way the Aruch ha'Shulchan (EH 130:7) summarises this Halachah we can get a good picture of the topic. The Aruch ha'Shulchan writes that according to the original Halachah it is not necessary to write any name at all in a Get. Often this would suffice and there would be no need to confirm the Get if no one questioned its validity. However, if it would be necessary to confirm the Get, it would be possible to do so by finding other docunments, with identical handwriting, which had been upheld by a Beis Din. Since this was a burdensome process, Raban Gamliel instituted that at least the name of the witness himself, or the name of his father, should be written in the Get.

6. I would suggest that according to this, if the signator is one of five brothers, this is also in order because if there should be a problem afterwards it will be possible to find specimens of the five brothers' handwriting, and in this way one can know which brother signed.

7. However, the Aruch ha'Shulchan continues and says that even though according to the Mishnah "ben Ish Ploni Ed" suffices, nowadays we are Machmir and require people to write "Ish Ploni ben Ish Ploni Ed" with the explicit names of both father and son.

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

With reference to your question whether this is the only Yakov in town:

1. The Gemara indeeed states in Bava Basra (167b) that if there are two people in the same town named Yosef ben Shimon, each one can divorce his wife only if his namesake is also present at the time he gives the Get. Otherwise, we are concerned that one of the Yosefs might give the get to the other's wife. See Shulchan Aruch EH 120:3, that this applies only when the names of the wives are also identical.

2. However, as far as I am aware, this concern applies only when the names of the husbands and wives are identical, but there is not a similar problem when there is someone else in town with the same name as the witness. We can understand this on the basis of the Gemara in Gitin (36a) that we cited above; if any question should arise in connection with the signature of one of the witnesses, it would be possible to obtain a specimen of the handwriting of his namesake and decide who really signed on the Get.

3. (I think that we are probably disturbed, when discussing this subject, with why we do not write family names on the Get? In fact, Rashi on the Mishnah (87b, DH Chanikoso) refers to writing the accompanying name of the entire family, and the Korban Nesanel (on the Rosh) gives as examples the family names Rotenberg and Weil. Rav Elyashiv zt'l, in his He'oros on Gitin (87b, page 534), says that indeed according to the Halachah it would be preferable to write family names in Gitin but in pratice one cannot do this because it would give a bad reputation to former Gitin. However, Rav Elyashiv added that in one case in which he was involved there was a doubt that could not be resolved about how to write a name in a Get, and he ruled that since in this case there was no choice the family name should be used. He relied on the opinion of the Maharsham for this ruling.)

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds further:

I found an additional source concerning two witnesses in the same town who are both named Yakov.

1. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (18b) explains the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 20a) that states that if one finds in the marketplace a Shtar (including a Get) which has been "made" (i.e. has been confirmed and validated as having authentic signatures) in Beis Din, one may return it to the owner. Rebbi Yirmeyah (end of 18b) says that this refers to a scenario in which the witnesses who signed the Get tell us that they signed only one Get concerning this particular man. The Gemara says that the only Chidush of the Mishnah -- when it says that one may return such a lost and found Get to the owner -- is that we need not be concerned that there ever existed any Get with identical names of husband, wife, and witnesses.

2. The Shulchan Aruch (EH 132:4) writes that if one finds such a Get in the street, it is necessary that witnesses testify that it is not known that any other people have the same name as the witnesses signed on the Get. If there are other witnesses with identical names, then the signed witnesses must testify that this really is their writing. (See Chidushei ha'Gra #11, who writes that the source for this is the above Gemara, which implies that if one knows that there were two witnesses with the same name, then one may not return the Get.)

3. So, in the case you mentioned, where the witness was called Yakov, we presumably would have to consult him before the woman could use the Get to remarry.

4. However, this would apply only to a lost and found Get, but if the divorced woman was in possession of the Get all the time, then we could assume that the "Yakov" signed was genuine.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds further:

I asked a Gadol if one should write "ben Yakov witness" if there is another Yakov in town, and he replied that l'Chatchilah one certainly should be careful to write additional ancestors (e.g. ben Yakov ben Yitzchak witness").

I also found another source that for a Get we are concerned that there may be a namesake in town. The Shulchan Aruch (EH 128:2) states that one of the items written in the Get is the location of the husband at the time of the writing of the Get. In the "Seder ha'Get" printed at the end of Shulchan Aruch EH 154, the Pischei Teshuvah #19 cites the Yeshu'os Yakov as explaining that the chief reason for why the location of the husband is written in the Get is that we are concerned that there might be two people in town with the name Yosef ben Shimon.

We see from this the importance of ensuring that the Get was not written for a different husband with the same name.

Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,

Dovid Bloom