כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלֹּוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֹוֶה עִמּוֹ וְהַלֹּוֶה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him when he requests the document, but a scribe may not write a promissory note for a creditor who requests it unless the debtor is with him and consents. And it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages.

כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַלּוֹקֵחַ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹכֵר עִמּוֹ; וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of a field who requests one even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, but a scribe may not write a bill of sale for a purchaser who requests it unless the seller is with him and consents. And it is the purchaser who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שִׁטְרֵי אֵירוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both parties, the groom and the bride. And it is the groom who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטַר אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהַמְקַבֵּל נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him. And it is the sharecropper or contractor who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שִׁטְרֵי בֵירוּרִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר; רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לִשְׁנֵיהֶם כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנַיִם, לָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ.

A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration agreements or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. And both parties give the scribe his wages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself, and one for that one by himself.

גמ׳ מַאי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָן״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוֹבֵר.

What is meant by: Provided that the scribe recognizes the parties requesting the document? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It means provided that he recognizes the man’s name in the case of the bill of divorce and the woman’s name in the case of the receipt.

יָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא וְרַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, וְיָתֵיב אַבַּיֵי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָמִיבָּעֲיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט – אִין, שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה לָא? שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשׁוֹבֵר – אִין, שֵׁם הָאִישׁ לָא?

The Gemara relates: Rav Safra and Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana were sitting, and Abaye was sitting near them. And as they were sitting, they raised a dilemma: Did Rav mean that with regard to the man’s name in the case of bill of divorce bill, yes, it must be known to the scribe, but the woman’s name need not be known to the scribe? And did he mean that with regard to the woman’s name in the case of the receipt, yes, it must be known to the scribe, but the man’s name need not be known to the scribe?

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא כָּתַב גִּיטָּא וְאָזֵיל וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהֵיאַךְ,

But if so, let there be a concern that perhaps the man who made the request writes the bill of divorce and intends to go and give it to the wife of another man with the same name.

וְזִמְנִין אָזְלָא כָּתְבָה אִשָּׁה שׁוֹבֵר וְיָהֲבָה לְגַבְרָא דְּלָאו דִּילָהּ!

And similarly, in the case of the receipt let there be a concern that there will be times when the woman writes the receipt and intends to give it to a man who is not her husband, whose wife shares her name.

אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבַּיֵי, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה; שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוֹבֵר, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ.

Abaye said to them: You are not understanding Rav’s statement correctly. This is what Rav says: The man’s name in the case of the bill of divorce must be known to the scribe, and the same is true of the woman’s name, which must also be known to the scribe. And the woman’s name in the case of the receipt must be known to the scribe, and the same is true of the man’s name, which must also be known to the scribe.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ לִשְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִים בְּעִיר אַחַת, דִּלְמָא כָּתֵיב גִּיטָּא וְאָזֵיל וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהֵיאַךְ! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִים בְּעִיר אַחַת, אֵין מְגָרְשִׁין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה.

They continued their line of questioning: And even if both names are known to the scribe, let there be a concern for the possibility of two men with the same name, such as two men named Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city and whose wives share the same name as well, and perhaps the man who made the request will write the bill of divorce and intend to go and give it to the wife of the other man who bears the same name as him. Rav Aḥa bar Huna said to them in reply that this is what Rav says: If there are two men named Yosef ben Shimon who live in one city and are married to women who share the same name, they may divorce their wives only in the presence of one another.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל לְמָתָא אַחֲרִיתָא וּמַחֲזִיק לֵיהּ לִשְׁמֵיהּ בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן, וְכָתֵיב גִּיטָּא וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהֵיאַךְ!

They continued to ask: But even if the scribe knows the man’s name and the name of the man’s wife, let there be a concern that perhaps someone will go to another city and establish a false name for himself as Yosef ben Shimon, and he will write the bill of divorce and give it to the wife of the other man, whose name really is Yosef ben Shimon.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: כָּל שֶׁהוּחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to them that this is what Rav says: With regard to anyone whose name has been established in a city for thirty days, there is no concern harbored about him that his name is false. It is assumed that this is his true name.

לָא אִיתְחַזַּק, מַאי? אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ וְעָנֵי. רַב זְבִיד אֲמַר: רַמָּאָה בְּרַמָּאוּתֵיהּ זָהִיר.

They continued to ask: What if his name has not been established for thirty days? How can a newcomer in a town have a bill of divorce drawn up for him? Abaye said: It is sufficient that people call him by the name he claims for himself and he responds to that call. Rav Zevid said: A liar is careful about upholding his lies, and just because he responds to being called by a particular name does not prove he is telling the truth. A newcomer would therefore have to wait thirty days before requesting that a scribe write him a bill of divorce.

הַהוּא תַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה חֲתִים עֲלָהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָתְיָא לְקַמֵּיהּ הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא, אֲמַרָהּ לֵיהּ: לָאו אֲנָא הֲוַאי, אֲמַר: אֲנָא נַמִי אֲמַרִי לְהוּ לָאו אִיהִי הִיא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: מֵיקָשׁ הוּא דְּקָשָׁא לָהּ וּבָגַר לָהּ קָלָא;

§ There was a certain receipt of payment of a marriage contract upon which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was signed as a witness. That woman, whose name matched the name on the receipt, came before Rav Yirmeya, seeking to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya recognized her name, but not her appearance. The woman said to him: It was not I whose name was on the receipt that you signed, but another woman with the same name; I have not collected payment of my marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya said: I, too, said to the other witnesses signed on the document: The woman for whom we signed the receipt is not she. But they said to me: It is in fact the same woman, but she has aged and her voice has matured and changed, and that is why you do not recognize her.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן:

Abaye said that although the Sages said: