Corrections of the Scribes

The Jerusalem Talmud states:

R. Judah ben Betera says: One may not write on erased paper. R. Eleazar says: Where does he [i.e., R. Judah] disagree [with the rabbis]? Regarding bills of divorce, but with regard to general documents, even R. Judah agrees. He explains that the text of the document is written on the smooth part of the paper, while its witnesses are on the erased part. Resh Lakish says: There is no difference between bills of divorce and general documents; the dispute between R. Judah and the rabbis applies in both cases. He too explains that the text of the document is written on the smooth part of the paper, while its witnesses sign on the erased part. A difficulty was raised against R. Eleazar: If the witnesses’ [signatures] appear on the erased part, how do the rabbis allow it? R. Zera said before R. Mona that these rabbis follow the opinion of R. Eleazar,¹ referring to a case where the text of the document was written on the erased part of the paper, while its witnesses were on the smooth part. Samuel says: Both this and this are written on the erased part. And R. Judah spoke well: What is the reason, then, of the rabbis? It is discernible whether paper has been erased once or erased twice. [y. Gittin 2:4]

Now I cannot reconcile this passage with our Gemara. For in our Gemara, R. Eleazar was more stringent regarding other documents,² whereas here he is more lenient. Also, the versions of the statements and the wording of the text in the Jerusalem Talmud is imprecise. Nevertheless, one can infer from it that R. Eleazar is referring to a case where the document is on the erased part while the witnesses are on the smooth part, and our Gemara explains likewise.

However, the gaon maintains that the dispute is referring to a case in which no witnesses appear on the document. This does not seem right to me, for if so, how can the Gemara state: “Who are the rabbis? R. Eleazar, who says: Witnesses to the transmission of the bill of divorce effect a divorce? The first tanna, R. Judah, necessarily maintains the same opinion,³ only he is concerned that the witnesses might forget.” This matter requires further analysis.

In any case, it is implied that according to the law, we require writing that cannot be forged. It further stands to reason that our parchments are considered like those which have been processed with gall,⁴ as this does not only mean actual gall; rather, the requirement is that the parchment was prepared properly. Rabbenu Jacob [Tam] wrote similarly. [ . . . ]

If a bill of divorce was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or if it was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or if one witness signed in Hebrew and the other witness in Greek, or one witness signed in Greek and the other witness in Hebrew, the bill is valid. This is the case only if they know how to read it, as stated in the Jerusalem Talmud at the end of the discussion on the ratification of documents. It can be inferred from the mention of witnesses “who know how to read but do not know how to sign” that the writing of witnesses in Greek is not like our writing. Rather, it is like actual Greek writing that starts from the left and moves to the right, like the writing of non-Jews. Thus, a signature in Greek on a bill of divorce will appear on the left side. The same applies to all documents, as they too are valid in any language, as stated in chapter two [b. Gittin 19b].