(Mishnah): If five men wrote Klal in a Get (a joint Get for all of them), i.e. Reuven divorces Leah, Shimon divorces Rachel... and witnesses signed below, all are valid. The Get is given to each wife.

If a Tofes (the standard text of a Get without the names and date) was written for each [couple], and the witnesses are below, the [Get] that the witnesses are read with it (it is right above the signatures) is valid.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): If [it is written between the Get and the signatures] 'and I ask about Ploni's wellbeing', the Chazakah is that [a witness] signs on everything (i.e. also the Get, and not only on She'elas Shalom; the Get is Kosher. If it says 'I ask about Ploni's wellbeing' (without 'and', perhaps), he signed only on She'elas Shalom (the Get is Pasul).

(Reish Lakish): Even if it says 'I ask about Ploni's wellbeing', the Chazakah is that he signed on all of them (all of them are Kosher).

(Rabanan there (in Bavel)): According to R. Yochanan, what is Klal [in our Mishnah]? It is 'Ploni divorces Plonis, and Ploni divorces Plonis...'

According to Reish Lakish, what is Klal? 'We, Ploni and Ploni, divorce our wives [Plonis and Plonis,] from place Ploni (and later it details, Reuven divorces Leah, Shimon divorces Sarah... He holds that even 'and' does not connect. Above, the Gemara explained how Chachmei Eretz Yisrael understood Reish Lakish, that even without 'and', all are connected.)

(R. Ze'ira): R. Yochanan agrees that if he mentioned a date of divorce for each one, that he needs a Tofes and witnesses for each. (Only R. Ze'ira distinguishes like this. The rest of our Sugya holds that it R. Yochanan holds that it depends only on whether or not he said 'and'.)

Note: If the dates are different, obviously he needs witnesses for each. If they signed only once, the dates for the others are wrong! Perhaps the Chidush is to require a Tofes for each. Or, we decree when the dates are the same, due to different dates.

Source (for R. Yochanan - Mishnah): [One who vowed] that I will not give benefit to this (what I give to him is forbidden like a) Korban, and to this Korban - [if he wants to permit his vow,] he needs a Pesach (reason why the vow was a mistake) for each one. (Had he not mentioned 'and' for each one, it would be a Klal (one vow); if it is partially permitted, it is totally permitted.)

Support (for R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If a Tofes was written for each, and the witnesses are below, the [Get] that the witnesses are read with it is valid. (This is when they are not connected through 'and'. According to Chachmei Eretz Yisrael, Reish Lakish holds that even without 'and', all are connected, so all are Kosher.)

(Shmuel): What R. Meir considers Prat (individual Shevu'os, i.e. when he said 'and'), R. Yehudah considers Klal. What R. Yehudah considers Prat (when he did not say 'and'), R. Meir considers Klal.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Ze'ira): Rabanan's (i.e. R. Yochanan's) words show that R. Meir's Prat is not R. Yehudah's Klal;

(R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): 'And I ask about Ploni's wellbeing', the Chazakah is that he signed on everything. 'I ask about Ploni's wellbeing', he signed only on She'elas Shalom;

If you will say that R. Meir's Prat is R. Yehudah's Klal, if he said (wrote) 'I ask about Ploni's wellbeing', the Chazakah is that he signed on all of them (for this is a Klal according to R. Yehudah, whom we rule like against R. Meir)!

Support (for R. Shmuel - R. Yosi): A Mishnah shows that R. Yehudah's Prat is not the Klal of R. Meir! (SEFER NIR)

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Even if he said [a Shevu'ah denying that he owes] 'wheat and barley and spelt' [in the singular forms of these words], he is liable for each one.

A person says "even" only when he agrees with the first matter [and adds to it. In the previous clause, the first Tana (R. Yehudah) said that for 'wheat and barley and spelt' in the plural forms of these words, he is liable for each one.]

Question: How is this? (What do R. Yehudah and R. Meir argue about?)

Answer (R. Chaninah): According to R. Meir, whether he said the plural forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', or the singular forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it can be a Klal (if he did not put Vov's in between) or Prat (if he put Vov's in between);

According to R. Yehudah, if he said the plural forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it can be a Klal or Prat (based on whether or not he put Vov's in between). If he said the singular forms of 'wheat and barley and spelt', it is only a Klal (I do not owe you anything, even one wheat kernel...), and not a Prat (whether or not he put Vov's in between. We explained this like PNEI MOSHE, Shevu'os 5:4.)

(Mishnah): If two Gitin were written side by side, and two witnesses signed in Hebrew under them, from under the right Get to under the left Get, and two witnesses signed underneath in Yevanis, from under the left Get to under the right Get:

The Get on the side that the first signatures begin (i.e. Hebrew writing goes from right to left) is valid.

If one witness signed underneath in Hebrew, and under him a witness signed in Yevanis, then a Hebrew witness, then a Yevanis, both Gitin are Pasul.

(Gemara): If one distanced the witnesses from the writing an area enough for two lines, it is Pasul. Less than this, it is Kosher.

(Shimon bar Ba citing R. Yochanan): A blank space of two lines [and one wrote in it], it is Pasul, even any matter (other than signatures).

If one witness signed underneath in Hebrew, and under him a witness signed in Yevanis, then a Hebrew witness, then a Yevanis, both Gitin are Pasul.

A Hebrew [witness with respect to] a Yevani [witness] - is this not like another matter?! (He signed on a different Get! This is why it is Pasul. (Even though there is only one extraneous signature in between, sometimes letters of the name extend above the text line (e.g. Lamed) and below (e.g. final Chaf). Such extensions occupy the space of an extra half-line above and an extra half-line below, so in all there are two blank lines filled with another matter. Chachamim did not distinguish, and always disqualify, even for names that do not have letters that extend above or below (SHIREI KORBAN.)

(R. Mana): If [the signatures, i.e. the first signature] began at the end of two lines (below the text), and [the latter signature] finished at the end of four lines, it is Kosher (for there are not two blank lines).

Question: How far may the witnesses' [signatures] be from the text?

Answer #1: They should be read with it (without any separation). Rebbi says so;

Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Elazar): They may be a full line [away].

Answer #3 (R. Dostai bei R. Yanai): It is the size [height] of the witnesses' signatures.

Question: With what kind of writing do we gauge [the two blank lines]?

Answer #1 (R. Yosa bei R. Shabsi): It is the size of the witnesses' signatures (based on how they signed).

Answer #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yitzchak bar Chalukah): It is in order to write 'Lecha' [on top of] 'Lecha' (i.e. two lines, and each has a space above and below for letters like Lamed and final Chaf, which extend above and below the text line).

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Ze'ira): Is the signature of Yosi ben Yanai (which has no letters that extend above or below the line) like the signature of Sha'ul ben Baruch?

Answer: Therefore, it needed to teach that [we allot the same space for] the signature of Yosi ben Yanai is like the signature of Sha'ul ben Baruch.

A document that has an erasure or suspended letters (between the lines) mi'Gufo (in matters special of this document) itself is Pasul. If it is not mi'Gufo (rather, in the Tofes that is the same in all documents), it is Kosher;

If he repeated below (a Kiyum of what was erased or suspended), even mi'Gufo, it is Kosher.

(R. Yonah and R. Yosi): One must repeat (what was erased or suspended, at least) two lines from the place of the writing (signatures. If not, we are concerned lest witnesses left room less than two lines between the text and their signatures, and afterwards the bearer erased or suspended, and wrote a Kiyum in that space!)

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav): He must mention the matter of the document with it (in the two lines. If not, perhaps the witnesses signed only on the Kiyum of the erasures or suspensions.)

(R. Ba citing Rav): [Even] if he did not mention the matter of the document with it [it is Kosher].

Question: R. Ba contradicts himself! There, R. Ba said in the name of R. Yirmeyah that Pasul witnesses are considered distancing the testimony [from the document], and here he says so (that even if he did not mention the matter of the document in the two lines, it is Kosher! We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

Answer: There, he said in the name of R. Yirmeyah. Here he said in the name of Rav.

Question: If one protested against the signatures of the witnesses, and on the signatures of the judges (claimed that they were forged, how does the bearer validate it)?

Answer #1 (R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah): If he wants, he validates the witnesses' signatures and it is validated, or the judges' signatures and it is validated.

Answer #2 (R. Ba): I say that even through one witness and one judge, it is validated.

Support (R. Mana): This is proper, for if he wanted to validate it even through one [set, i.e. the witnesses or the judges, it is validated. Therefore, they join.]

Question: If one authorized a scribe to write and witnesses to sign [and they did so on a later day, what is the law]?

Answer (R. Ba citing R. Yirmeyah): The witnesses must write 'this loan was on Nisan 1. We postdated it.

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav Hamnuna): Kiyum of judges - even if it is far [from the witnesses' signatures], it is Kosher.

(Rav): The judges must write 'we validated it in the presence of Ploni and Ploni (who testified about the signatures).'

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It is so they can be Huzam.

Question: If so, [they must write] even what day, time of day and where [they validated, so Mezimim can tell the witnesses of Kiyum 'you were with us elsewhere at the time']!

A Kiyum came in front of Rav, and it was not written so (the witnesses of Kiyum, day, time and place). R. Chagai said, the judges must recognize the litigants.

A case occurred, and they forged it (made a ruling against someone else).