Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. How can it be proclaimed valid with Reuven's signature? The Mishnah only states that if a person signs "Ish Ploni Eid" that it is valid, not if he merely signs "Ish Ploni" without the word "Eid!" (Note: "Reuven" without "Eid" should be invalid!)

Answer: The Ri answers that it is obvious that Reuven refers to the "Ben Yaakov Eid" that is written after it. It is as if it explicitly states, "Reuven Eid."

Explanation: Rashi explains that "Reuven Ben" implies, "I am the son of Reuven," in the same way that we interpret the signature of the Greeks. The one who signed under the second one was a different person called Yaakov.

Implied Question: According to his explanation that he signed like the way Greeks sign, he did not need to explain that Yaakov was a different person. He could merely have explained that Yaakov himself is the son of Reuven (listed above).

His explanation is difficult, as it means that a Jew would sign like a Greek.

Explanation: It appears that the explanation of "Reuven Ben" is that he is the son of Yaakov. Reuven did not deem it necessary to write the name of his father, as it is written and signed on the other Get. It is therefore clearly read as Reuven ben Yaakov (with the Yaakov part being signed by his father on the second Get).

Explanation: This implies that we would normally assume that this is Yaakov.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we require the verification of the signatures. (Note: Why, then, would we assume anything before the signatures are verified?)

Answer#1: It must be that the messenger who said, "It was written etc. before me" recognizes the signature.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that this case is in Eretz Yisrael where verification of the signatures is not necessary, being that there are no people claiming that the signatures are not authentic.

Explanation: We should assume it is valid, being that his father signed underneath the second Get.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that there they first made these symbols knows as their signatures by writing documents and signing them with these symbols, as stated in Bava Basra (161b) and earlier in Gitin (36a). (Note: Why, then, should we think this symbol should be valid when it was never made clear from previous documents that this is his "signature?")

Answer: Here we should say it is valid even though there is no previous document containing this as his signature, being that his name is signed underneath the first Get.

Implied Question: However, from the Mishnah itself which states that if the two first witnesses are read with it the Get is valid, the Gemara did not try to prove that this should be valid. This is despite the fact that the Mishnah does not differentiate between a Get whose language of writing is the same as that of its witnesses or if it is not the same (i.e. Hebrew or Greek (also a Jew). (Note: This seems to imply that as long as the first two witnesses are underneath it the Get is valid, no matter what the language.)

Answer: This is because it is possible to push aside that the Mishnah is specifically referring to a case where the language is similar to that of the witnesses.

Explanation: Rashi explains that on every Get there is one Hebrew signing and one Greek.

According to his explanation, it appears that our text is, "One Hebrew witness and one Greek witness going one (signature) under the other, and one Greek witness and one Hebrew witness going one under the other, both are invalid."

The Gemara's text is, "And let the Get be valid with one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, and the other should be valid with one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness?" (Note: According to Rashi, it seems that the personal names have to be lined up in the Get so that one Hebrew and one Greek name are under each. See the Maharsha's picture of the Get according to Rashi.)

Opinion#1: There are those who explains that the case is where the witnesses sign normally, taking up one line per signature.

Question#1: Rashi asks that if so, one will not find a case of a Hebrew witness signed on the second Get. However, our Mishnah divided them by saying that each had one Hebrew and one Greek witness! (Note: If each Hebrew witness sign from right to left, his name is only under the first Get, not the second. How can their be a Hebrew witness under the second Get?)

Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara asks that each should be valid with a Hebrew and Greek witness (implying there is one of each variety under every Get).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that it is possible to answer that every signature is indeed on one line (as per opinion#1). Our text in the Mishnah is only, "One Hebrew witness and one Greek witness, and one Hebrew witness and one Greek witness coming one (signature) from under one Get to the other." We do not have the text, "from under" until the end of the Mishnah (see the Maharsha's picture of the Get in his comments on our Tosfos).

The Gemara also only has the text, "Let us say the Get is valid with one witness who is a Hebrew and one who is Greek" and not more. (Note: It does not say, "from under etc.")

This is what the Gemara means. Certainly, if we do not suspect that one of the witnesses signed opposite of the way they would normally sign (because they saw one of the previous witnesses sign in that manner), we should say both Gitin are valid. The first has two Hebrews and the second has two Greeks. (Note: Being that all of the signatures are "Ploni" under the first Get and "ben Ploni," under the second, there are two Hebrews under the first Get and two Greeks (whose personal name is last) under the second Get.)

Rather, even if we do suspect that one of them signed opposite of how they would normally sign and therefore both cannot be valid, at least the first Get should be valid with one Hebrew witness who signed normally and one Greek who signed in the opposite manner. (Note: Being that the first Hebrew clearly signed normally, and there is at least one Greek signing the Hebrew way, the first Get is clearly valid as it has two personal names underneath it.)

We could say that the first Get should be valid with all of the signatures, as all of them could be referring to the first Get. However, we did not need to say the first Get is valid with anymore than the Hebrew and Greek.

The Gemara answers that our Tana suspects a backward signing and therefore invalidates all of the Gitin. He suspects that perhaps three signed on one Get, and the other on the other Get. It is possible that the first Hebrew signed on the first Get, while the second Hebrew and the Greeks signed on the second Get. It is possible that the second Hebrew signed backwards (after seeing the Greek sign). Alternatively, it is possible the first Greek signed backwards, causing his signature to be on the first Get together with the two Hebrews, and the last Greek signed on the second Get.

Question: Why did the Mishnah deem it necessary to say in the latter half of the Mishnah that if he put the two heads of the Get next to each other that both are invalid? This is a case where the signature is at the head of the page (and the Mishnah already stated this is invalid)!

Answer: The Mishnah needed to invalidate a case where the roof of the witnesses' signatures were opposite the roof of the writing of the Gitin. This is according to the Gemara's conclusion that the first case in the Mishnah is not when the signature is like a bridge (connecting the two sides).

We only understand from the first case that the feet (i.e. bottom) of the signature of the witnesses was opposite the roof of the writing of the Get (and the Get is invalid). Even though we see this from the second part of the Mishnah as well, it is possible to say that this first case is needed for the following reason.

I would think that both Gitin are invalid because just like the signatures are not clearly going on one Get, it is also not going on the other Get. However, here where there is only one Get (in the first case of the Mishnah), the signature is certainly referring to this Get (and even so it is invalid).

The end of the second part of the Mishnah teaches that in a case where the head of one Get was next to the end of the other Get, the Get that the witnesses are read with is not invalid. We would have thought it would be, as just like the signature is not clearly going on one Get, it is also not going on the other Get.

Explanation: According to Rashi, whose text originally is, "The end of one Get next to the end of the other Get," the last case of the Mishnah is unnecessary, and is only said in order to list all possible cases.

Text: Some Sefarim do not have the text of the last case, and the Gemara indeed does not quote it.

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier said that we suspect for the witnesses signing in a backward manner (i.e. a Greek signing like a Hebrew), and therefore said the Get is invalid, even though we earlier assumed in a similar situation that the Get is valid. This is as the Gemara asks, "And let this Get be valid etc." (Note: Why in our Gemara do we ask that we should suspect, while in the previous Gemara the question is why we don't assume that it is valid?)

Answer: The Gemara earlier that assumed the Get was valid did so because it seems true that he signed the name of his father under the second Get, and he therefore signed as well. (Note: Here we have no such reasoning to make us assume the Get should be valid.)