Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 2:4

משנה: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. כְּתָבוֹ בִּמְחוּבָּר תְּלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵר. וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּתִירָא אוֹמֵר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל הַנְּייָר מָחוּק וְלֹא עַל הַדִּיפְתְּרָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּייֵף וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. MISHNAH: One does not write on anything connected to the ground. If he wrote on anything connected, detached it, signed,⁹⁸Not only affixed the signatures of the witnesses but also inserted the essential data of the document; cf. Gittin 2:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.2.5.2">Note 100. and delivered it, it is valid, but Rebbi Jehudah declares it invalid unless both writing and signing took place when it was detached. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, one writes neither on erased papyrus nor on διφθέρα⁹⁹In Mishnaic usage, hide incompletely tanned; cf. Sotah 2:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.4.1">Soṭah 2:6, Note 151. The hide does not absorb the ink which can be wiped off without leaving a trace. because these can be falsified but the Sages declare valid.

הלכה: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע כול׳. לֵית הָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס כָּשֵׁר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ כַּטּוֹפֶס פָּסוּל. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ. חִיבְּרוֹ וּתְלָשׁוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעֵי. כְּתָבוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ חִיבְּרוֹ תְלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. מַה אָֽמְרִין בָּהּ רַבָּנִין. HALAKHAH: “One does not write on anything connected to the ground,” etc. This does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid^100,This refers to Gittin 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.2.1">Mishnah 3:2, in which permission is given to scribes to prepare the formulaic text of divorce documents, so that only the names of husband and wife and the date have to be inserted, without violating the commandment that the document be written specifically for the woman concerned. It is not mentioned in the Mishnah whether the text which turns the document into one of divorce, "this is your bill of divorce and you are permitted to every man" is part of the formulaic text or has to be written with that particular woman in mind. R. Johanan permits this sentence to be written as a formula, R. Simeon ben Laqish prohibits. (In the Gittin.21b">Babli, 21b, the attributions are switched, probably because the Babli insists that practice follow R. Johanan.) In the interpretation of the Babli, the divorce formula may be prepared in advance for R. Eleazar, for whom only the witnesses to the delivery of the text are important, but not for R. Mei'r, for whom the witnesses signing the document are those who validate the divorce. It is impossible to know whether the Yerushalmi would agree to this interpretation.¹⁰¹The Geniza text has a longer sentence: "R. Ze'ira said, they disagree in this, R. Johanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid, R. Simeon ben Laqish said..." This text adds no new information.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid. Samuel bar Abba asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected it again, detached it, and delivered it to her; what does Rebbi Jehudah say¹⁰²Since the bill was written according to the rules, does a later unnecessary action invalidate the document? No answer is given; it is difficult to see why the answer should be “valid”.? Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Abin asked: If he wrote and signed it when detached, then he connected again, signed, and detached it, and delivered it to her; what do the rabbis say¹⁰³This text seems to be self-contradictory since “signing” is mentioned twice. It is difficult to amend the text against the concurrent testimony of the ms. sources available. Sefer haʻIṭṭur I 26a, quotes an identical text for both questions, one addressed to R. Jehudah and one to the rabbis. Rashba (Novellae ad 21b, end) reads in the question addressed to the rabbis: If he wrote it when detached, attached, signed, detached, and delivered it, what do the rabbis say? In this case the obvious answer is: invalid. The text as it stands can be interpreted to mean that the bill was written when detached, including date, both names, and the statement that it was a divorce document which freed the wife to marry any man, but that the witnesses signed when it was attached to the ground. Then it would be invalid for R. Meïr and valid for R. Eleazar the Tanna.?

אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּגִיטִּין. אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָרוֹת אוּף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֶה. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הֶחָלָק וְעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא שַׁנְייָה הִיא. בֵּין בְּגִיטִּין בֵּין בִּשְׁטָרוֹת הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הֶחָלָק וְעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק. וְקַשְׁיָא. אָמַר לו. עַל דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אִם בְּעֵדִים עַל הַמַּחַק בְּדָא חֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵן בְּשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּי פָתַר לָהּ שְׁטָר עַל הַמַּחַק וְעֵדִים עַל הֶחָלָק. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זֶה וְזֶה עַל הַמַּחַק. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. נִיכַּר הוּא אִם נִמְחַק פַּעַם אַחַת וְאִם נִמְחַק שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. ¹⁰⁴This paragraph is also in Sefer haʻIṭṭur 26d (Note 52); the variant readings are given byע . While medieval authors cannot be expected always to quote exactly, the text is quoted as support for the Geniza readings. Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰⁵The Amora. said, where do they disagree? About bills of divorce. But for contracts even Rebbi Jehudah will agree¹⁰⁶In the Gittin.22b">Babli, 22b, R. Eleazar says that the Sages agree with R. Jehudah that contracts may not be written as palimpsests or on erasable leather.. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure¹⁰⁷Then the document cannot be forged and one hopes that the signatures can be verified either by the signers or by comparing the signatures with those on other known documents.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it makes no difference; they disagree both about bills of divorce and contracts¹⁰⁸In the Gittin.22b">Babli, 22b, this is attributed to R. Joḥanan.. He explains it if the document is on a smooth surface and the witnesses on the erasure. It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: If the witnesses [sign] on the erasure, do the Sages declare it valid¹⁰⁹It is difficult to agree that the signatures cannot be forged.? Rebbi Ze‘ira⁸⁰Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. said before Rebbi Mana: The Sages follow the argument of Rebbi Eleazar¹¹⁰The Tanna who dismisses the signatures on the bill of divorce as irrelevant and requires delivery of the bill in the presence of witnesses to the delivery. This is the explanation of the Babli in the name of the Amora R. Eleazar., for he explains that the document is on the erasure and the witnesses on a smooth surface¹¹¹The witnesses to the delivery must read the document before delivery to verify that it is what it is declared to be. They would detect a forgery.. Samuel said, everything is on the erasure¹¹²The entire document is a palimpsest. This explanation is implied by the language of the Mishnah; such a document is declared valid in the Babli (Baba batra 163a) in the name of Rav.. Does not Rebbi Jehudah say it correctly? Rebbi Abba said, it is recognizable whether there was an erasure once or twice¹¹³The editors of the Babli agree, Baba batra 164a..