Gittin

for we assume in that case that if the Cuthean were not a Haber,  the Israelite would not let him sign before him. In that case, why are not other documents also valid? Consequently the truth is that we say, 'he left room for someone senior to himself.'  But if that be so cannot we say here too that he left room for someone senior to himself? — Said R. Papa: This proves that the witnesses to a Get do not sign save in one another's presence.  What is the reason for this? — R. Ashi says that it is to prevent any infringement of the rule concerning 'all of you'. The text above [states]: 'R. Eleazar said [that a Get of this kind] has been declared valid only if there is not more than one Cuthean signature to it.' What does he teach us by this statement? Has not the Mishnah already told us that NO DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE SIGNATURE OF A SAMARITAN etc.? — If I had only the Mishnah to go by, I should say that even with two [Cuthean signatures the Get is valid], and that the reason why one [only is mentioned] is to show that other documents are rendered invalid even by one Samaritan signature; hence [R. Eleazar's statement] is necessary. But [is a Get] with two [Cuthean signatures] invalid? Does not the Mishnah say: IT IS RELATED THAT A WRIT OF DIVORCE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE RABBAN GAMALIEL [AT KEFAR 'UTHNAI] AND ITS WITNESSES WERE CUTHEANS, AND HE DECLARED IT VALID? — Abaye says: Read 'its witness Raba says: It is quite correct that there were two, and the fact is that Rabban Gamaliel differs [from the first authority], and there is an omission [in the Mishnah, which should] read as follows: 'Rabban Gamaliel declares [a Get] valid with two [Cuthean signatures], and it is actually related that a Get was brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar 'Uthnai and its witnesses were Cutheans and he declared it valid.' MISHNAH. ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTED IN HEATHEN COURTS,  EVEN IF THEY THAT SIGNED THEM WERE GENTILES, ARE VALID [FOR JEWISH COURTS] EXCEPT WRITS OF DIVORCE AND OF EMANCIPATION. R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID; THEY WERE ONLY PRONOUNCED [TO BE INVALID] WHEN DRAWN UP BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS. GEMARA. [Our Mishnah] lays down a comprehensive rule in which no distinction is made between a sale and a gift. We can understand that the rule should apply to a sale, because the purchaser acquires the object of sale from the moment when he hands over the money in their  presence, and the document is a mere corroboration; for if he did not hand over the money in their presence, they would not take the risk  of drawing up a document of sale for him. But with a gift [it is different]. Through what [does the recipient] obtain possession? Through this document, [is it not]? And this document is a mere piece of clay?  — Said Samuel: The law of the Government is law.  Or if you prefer, I can reply: Instead of 'except writs of divorce' in the Mishnah, read, 'except [documents] like writs of divorce.' R. SIMEON SAYS: THESE ALSO ARE VALID etc. How can this be, seeing that to heathens the act of 'severance'  is not applicable? — Said R. Zera: R. Simeon here accepts the view of R. Eleazar, who said that the separation is actually effected by the witnesses to the delivery [of the document]. But has not R. Abba said that R. Eleazar used to admit [that a Get] which in itself contained a flaw was invalid?  — We are dealing here