Gittin

by the fact that it goes by steps from one number to the next,  which shows [that it is as R. Johanan said]. Abaye said: It also shows that the relative may sign where he pleases, at the beginning or in the middle or at the end; we gather this from the fact that no fixed place is assigned to him. It also shows that the Get can be confirmed on the strength of any three signatures and we do not require three next to one another, for if you should suppose that we do require them to be together, a place could be assigned to the relative before or between or after every two competent ones,  and several [relatives] should be allowed. When a party came before R. Ammi,  she said, Go and complete it with the signature of a slave from the street. MISHNAH. IF A MAN ON DIVORCING HIS WIFE SAYS TO HER, YOU ARE HEREBY FREE TO MARRY ANY MAN BUT SO-AND-SO, R. ELIEZER PERMITS HER [TO MARRY ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS GET], BUT THE RABBIS FORBID HER. WHAT MUST HE DO? HE MUST TAKE IT BACK FROM HER AND GIVE IT TO HER AGAIN SAYING, YOU ARE HEREBY FREE TO MARRY ANY MAN. IF HE WROTE IT  IN THE GET, EVEN THOUGH HE SUBSEQUENTLY ERASED IT, IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. The question was raised: Has the word BUT here the force of 'except' or of 'on condition'? Shall we say it means 'except', and it is where he said 'except [So-and-so]' that the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer, on the ground that he has left an omission in the Get,  but that where he says 'on condition [that you do not marry So-and-so]' they agree with R. Eliezer, placing this condition on a par with any other?  Or should we say perhaps that [BUT here] means 'on condition', and it is where he says 'on condition' that R. Eliezer differs from the Rabbis,  but where he says except' he agrees with them, on the ground that he has left an omission in the Get? — Rabina replied: Come and hear: 'All houses are defiled by strokes of leprosy but those of heathen'.  Now if you say that it means 'on condition', are we to understand that it is only on condition that the houses of heathens are not defiled that the houses of Israelites are defiled, which would imply that if the houses of heathens are defiled the houses of Israelites are not defiled? And besides, can the houses of heathens be defiled, seeing that it has been taught: 'And I put the plague of leprosy. in a house of the land of your possession:  [this implies] that the land of your possession is defiled by plague of leprosy, but houses of heathens are not defiled by plague of leprosy'? — We must understand therefore that 'but' means 'except'; and this may be taken as proved. The Mishnah is not in agreement with the Tanna of the following [passage]. where it is taught: R. Jose said in the name of R. Judah: R. Eliezer and the Rabbis were agreed that if a man on divorcing his wife said to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, she is not divorced. Where they differed was if a man on divorcing his wife said to her, You are hereby permitted to marry any man on condition that you do not marry So-and-so,