Gittin 11A

בשמות מובהקין.

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.

היכי דמי שמות מובהקין? אמר רב פפא, כגון: הורמיז, ואבודינא, בר שיבתאי, ובר קידרי, ובאטי, ונקים אונא.

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.

אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי ⁠– לא?! אי הכי, אדתני סיפא: לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט; לפלוג וליתני בדידה: במה דברים אמורים ⁠– בשמות מובהקין, אבל שמות שאין מובהקין ⁠– לא!

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 prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of non-Jew courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that non-Jew signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, non-Jew witnesses are not valid.

הכי נמי קאמר: במה דברים אמורים ⁠– בשמות מובהקין, אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין, נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט, ופסולין.

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 names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.