Gittin 87B

ודלמא בשמא דאבוה חתים! לא שביק איניש שמיה וחתים שמא דאבוה.

The Talmud asks: But perhaps Reuven signed both bills of divorce, and he signed the second one with his father’s name? The Talmud answers: One does not leave out his own name and instead sign in the name of his father.

ודילמא סימנא שוייה ⁠– דהא רב צייר כוורא, רבי חנינא ⁠– חרותא, רב חסדא ⁠– סמך, רב הושעיא ⁠– עין, רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא!

The Talmud asks: But perhaps he made his father’s name a symbol for his own signature? As Rav would draw a fish instead of signing his name, R' Ḥanina would draw a date palm, Rav Ḥisda would write a samekh, Rav Hoshaya would write an ayin, and Rabba bar Rav Huna would draw a sail.

לא חציף איניש לשוויי לשמא דאבוה סימנא.

The Talmud answers: A person would not be so brazen as to make his father’s name a symbol. Therefore, it is assumed that the word Ya’akov is a continuation of Reuven’s signature on the first bill of divorce, not a separate signature on the second bill of divorce.

וליתכשר האי בשני עדים עברים, וליתכשר האי בשני עדים יונים ⁠– דתנן: גט שכתבו עברית ועדיו יונית, יונית ועדיו עברית ⁠– כשר!

The Talmud raises a different question: But let this bill of divorce be validated by the two Hebrew witnesses, and let that bill of divorce be validated by the two Greek witnesses, as we learned in the subsequent Mishnah that a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, is valid.

וכי תימא, כיון דמופלג בשני שיטין ⁠– לא; והאמר חזקיה: מלאהו בקרובים ⁠– כשר!

And if you would say that since the signatures of the witnesses of the second bill of divorce are two lines away from the bill of divorce itself, it is not valid, as that is the halakha with regard to a document that has a gap between the text and the signatures, but didn’t Ḥizkiyya say that if the gap was filled, even with the signatures of relatives who are disqualified from serving as witnesses, it is valid?