Gittin

it does not write, and [for the plate] 'writing' was required?  — It was like [the inscription on] gold denarii and yet not like it. It was like it in the fact that it stood out, but not like it in the fact that there [in a coin] the pressure is applied on the same side [as the inscription], but here [in the plate] it was from the other side. Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man writes a Get on a plate of gold and says to his wife, 'Receive herewith your Get and receive herewith your kethubah', what is the ruling? — He replied: Both her Get and her kethubah have been legally received by her. [Raba] thereupon raised an objection. [We have been taught,] If a man says, 'Receive herewith your Get and the rest can go to your kethubah', the Get has been legally received by her and the rest goes to the kethubah. Now the reason is that there is something over, but otherwise not? — No. The same rule applies even if there is nothing over, and what this [statement] teaches us is that even if there is something over, if he tells her [to take that in payment of her kethubah] she takes it, but if not, not. For what reason? — Because [in that case the rest] is [reckoned merely as] the margin of the Get. Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says to his wife.] 'Here is your Get, but the sheet belongs to me', she is not divorced,  [but if he said.] On condition that you return the sheet to me, she is divorced.  R. Papa inquired: Suppose he says, [On condition that] the space between the lines, or between the words [is to belong to me], what is the ruling? — This question was left over. But cannot the question be decided from the fact that the Divine Law said 'a writ', that is to say one writ, and not two or three?  — The difficulty still remains in the case where it is all linked together. Rami b. Hama propounded: Suppose a slave [is brought into court] who is known to have belonged to the husband, and a Get is written on his hand and he comes before us as the slave of the wife, how are we to decide? Do we presume that the husband transferred the slave to the wife [along with the Get],  or do we argue that perhaps he went to her of his own accord? — Said Raba: Cannot the question be decided on the ground that the writing is such as to admit of falsification?  But does not Raba's difficulty apply also to our Mishnah which says that a Get may be written ON THE HAND OF A SLAVE? — We understand that the Mishnah presents no difficulty to Raba. [The Mishnah was speaking of a case] where [the Get was] delivered before witnesses,  in accordance with the ruling of R. Eleazar.  The difficulty,  however, arises on [the question of] Rami b. Hama!  — According to Rami b. Hama there is no difficulty, as he is speaking of the case [where the Get was] tattooed [on the slave's hand].  If you take that line, you can say that the Mishnah also presents  no difficulty, as it was speaking of tattooing. What then is the answer [to Rami b. Hama's question]? — Come and hear: Resh Lakish has laid down that there is no presumptive title to living creatures. Rami b. Hama inquired: If a tablet was known to have belonged to the wife, and a Get is written on it, and it is produced by the husband, what do we decide? Do we say that she made it over to him, or do we argue that a woman does not know how to make over things [temporarily]?  — Said Abaye: Come and hear: He  also testified regarding a small village adjoining Jerusalem in which lived an old man who used to lend money to all the people of the village, and he used to write the bond and others signed it, and the case was brought before the Sages and they declared the bonds valid. Now how could they do this, seeing that there must be a 'writ of transfer'.  Obviously the reason is that we say that he made over the bonds to them.  Said Raba: What is the difficulty? Perhaps