Study Gittin folio 11A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
We are dealing with unambiguous non-Jew names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are non-Jews.
The Talmud clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous non-Jew names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
The Talmud infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by non-Jew witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the Mishnah: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are pr
The Talmud answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., R' Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous name
And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the Mishnah, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of financial documents. Furthermore, this clau