אף על פי שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים חוץ מגיטי נשים‎—Even though the signatories are gentiles, they are כשר, except for גיטי נשים O VERVIEW The גמרא quotes the משנה of 'כל השטרות העולים בערכאות וכו' חוץ מגיטי נשים'. The משנה does not state explicitly who wrote the גט‎. It is the contention of תוספות that even if a ישראל wrote the גט לשמה it is פסול, if חותמיהן are עכו"ם. ------------- ואומר רבינו יצחק דחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים יש לפסול אף על פי שכתבו ישראל‎ – And the ר"י says, if the signatories are gentiles the גט should be invalid even if a Jew wrote the גט – תוספות gives four reasons why this type of גט is פסול; the first: דלאו בני כריתות נינהו כדאמרינן לקמן‎ – Because the עכו"ם are not people of כריתות‎ – severance, as the גמרא will state later on. The laws of כריתות‎ – גיטין do not apply to עכו"ם. Therefore they cannot testify on documents of כריתות‎ – גיטין. The second reason: ועוד דבעינן לשמה ועובד כוכבים אדעתא דנפשיה קא עבדי‎ – And furthermore we require that the signing be לשמה, for the sake of גירושין and an עכו"ם signs for his own interests; not necessarily לשם גירושין‎. כדאמרינן בסוף פרק ב' (לקמן דף כג, א) – As the גמרא states in the end of the second פרק. The third reason ועוד דלאו בני שליחות נינהו דאין שליחות לעובד כוכבים‎ – And in addition the עכו"ם do not have the capacity for שליחות‎ – agency, for an עכו"ם does not possess the power of שליחות‎. An עכו"ם cannot do something on behalf of someone, that it should be considered as if the ‘sender’ did it. תוספות will now explain why this prevents them from signing on the גט‎. ומדבעינן שיאמר לסופר לכתוב ולעדים חתומו משמע דבעי שליחות‎ – And since we require that the husband tell the סופר to write the גט and the husband is also required to tell the witnesses; ‘sign the גט’, this indicates that a שליחות process is required. The סופר and the עדים are שלוחים of the בעל‎. The סופר is writing the גט for the בעל‎. The תורה states וכתב לה that the husband should write the ספר כריתות‎. (The סופר writes it as a שליח of the בעל, therefore it is considered as if the בעל wrote it himself.) The עדים sign on the גט (according to ר"מ) to effectuate the 'וכתב לה ספר'; that there is a valid גט‎. The עדים are an integral part of the 'וכתב' of the בעל‎. They can only function if the בעל appoints them as his שלוחים‎. Therefore, since חתימת העדים requires שליחות, and עכו"ם are לאו בני שליחות, they cannot sign the גט‎. The fourth and final reason ועוד דפסולין לעדות‎ – And moreover עכו"ם are invalid as witnesses in general, not only by גיטין. ואפילו לרבי מאיר דלא הוה בעי למיפסל עבד לעדות‎ – And even according to ר"מ who did not want to invalidate an עבד כנעני from testifying, that is – משום דכתיב (דברים יט) שקר ענה באחיו ועבד אחיו הוא במצות‎ – Because it is written in the תורה concerning witnesses, ‘he testified falsely against his brother’; indicating that the witness and the litigant are to be considered ‘brothers’ in a certain sense, and an עבד כנעני is (also) ‘ his brother’ concerning the obligation to perform (certain) מצות‎. Therefore ר"מ initially thought (as a קס"ד), that an עבד כנעני is כשר לעדות for he is a brother to בני ישראל‎ – אבל עובד כוכבים דלאו אחיו הוא פשיטא דפסול‎ – However an עכו"ם who is not ‘his brother’ it is obvious that he is invalid to be a witness; an עכו"ם is not מחויב במצות and cannot be considered a ‘brother’ to a בן ישראל, therefore he cannot sign on the גט‎. תוספות follows through on this last statement. וכיון דלאו בני עדות נינהו היה ראוי‎ – And since עכו"ם are not acceptable witnesses, as תוספות just concluded, it would be fitting,– אפילו כל שטרות העולים בערכאות של עובדי ככבים לפסול מן התורה‎ – That even all the שטרות that originate in gentile courts should be nullified according to תורה law (not only מדרבנן); not as it says in this משנה that they are כשר (מדרבנן). אפילו אותם העומדים לראיה‎ – Even those שטרות that are needed only for proof; to verify the authenticity of a transaction, such as a loan or a sale; (as opposed to שטרי קנין, which enact a transaction such as גיטין ושטרי מתנה וכו'). שטרי קנין are certainly פסול מן התורה as תוספות will shortly state. However even שטרי ראיה should be פסול if signed by עכו"ם, since they are not בני עדות‎ – אלא תקנתא דרבנן הוא דהיכא דקים לן בסהדותייהו שהוא אמת דלא מרעי נפשייהו‎ – However this is an enactment of the רבנן that wherever we are certain concerning their testimony that it is true; the חכמים said that we accept their testimony since they do not want to blight their reputation. By ערכאות where they are not מרעי נפשייהו, we know that their testimony is true; we can rely on those שטרות as proof of a prior transaction. The transaction itself became effective through regular means; i.e. a sale or a loan through the transfer of money, etc. The שטר merely proves that the sale or loan actually happened. This enactment is valid only concerning שטרי ראיה ומכל מקום שטר מתנה קאמר לקמן (דף י, ב) דחספא בעלמא הוא‎ – However, concerning a שטר for a gift, the גמרא states later on, that a שטר מתנה whose signatories are עכו"ם is just a piece of potsherd. Where the שטר itself effects the transaction; the transference of ownership is through the transfer of the שטר, it is not valid [even] if signed by ערכאות‎. It is worthless as a שטר‎ – אף על גב דקים לן דקושטא קאמר משום דהרי אין כאן שטר‎ – Even though we are certain that the witness (an עכו"ם) is saying the truth; that one party is giving another a (deed of) property as a gift, nevertheless the recipient cannot acquire the property through this שטר that was signed by an עכו"ם because there is no שטר here. A שטר in order to be effective must have valid witnesses. In the case of עכו"ם signing on the שטר there are no valid witnesses, therefore the שטר is not effective. There is no transference of ownership from the giver to the recipient. ולמאי דמוקמינן לה בעדי מסירה ורבי אלעזר‎ – And according to what the גמרא will subsequently establish the משנה of ערכאות that there were עדי מסירה present at the transfer of the שטר and the משנה follows the opinion of ר"א who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי; then in a case – היכא דכתבו ישראל לא מיפסל אלא מטעם מזוייף מתוכו: where a ישראל wrote the גט and עכו"ם signed it the גט will not be פסול מן התורה; it will be פסול מדרבנן only on account of מזוייף מתוכו‎ – it is corrupted from within. ר"א does not require עדי חתימה‎. However if עדים signed, then they must be proper עדים, otherwise it is a שטר פסול‎. Therefore in this case the גט will be כשר מן התורה, since (it was written [לשמה] by a ישראל, and) there are עדי מסירה ישראל and they effectuate the גט‎. It is however פסול מדרבנן since it is מזוייף מתוכו‎. S UMMARY There are four reasons (according to ר"מ [ור"י‎?]) that גיטין העולין בערכאות של עכו"ם, even if a ישראל wrote it לשמה, it is פסול if signed by עכו"ם. A. עכו"ם are not בני כריתות‎. B. עכו"ם do not sign לשמה‎. C. עכו"ם are not בני שליחות, and the עדים (and the סופר) need to be שלוחי הבעל‎. D. עכו"ם are not כשר לעדות in general. There is a difference between שטרי ראיה and שטרי קנין concerning ערכאות‎. According to strict דין תורה, all שטרי ערכאות are פסול, since they are לאו בני עדות‎. The חכמים made an exception for ערכאות that they are כשר for שטרי ראיה, since they are not מרעי נפשייהו, they speak the truth. Concerning שטרי קנין, even שטרי ערכאות are פסול‎. According to ר"א if there are עדי מסירה present then גיטין העולין בערכאות, provided it was written by a ישראל לשמה, are פסול only מדרבנן because it is מזוייף מתוכו‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות seems to be assuming initially that we are discussing the משנה according to ר"מ, It is not understood why תוספות says 'אע"פ שכתבו ישראל'. There is seemingly no difference according to ר"מ who wrote the גט‎. Even if 'מצאו באשפה' it is כשר לכתחילה‎. There is no requirement for כתיבה לשמה according to ר"מ. Why then say 'אע"פ שכתבו ישראל'? 2. Is there any explanation for the order of the four reasons תוספות presents, or for the need of all of them? 3. Why is there no תקנת חכמים by שטרי קנין as well as by שטרי ראיה‎?
מקרעין להם נייר חלק‎—We tear a blank paper for them O VERVIEW There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to how the process of 'מקרעין להם נייר חלק' actually takes place. ------------- פירש בקונטרס מסרטין‎ – רש"י explains that the term מקרעין should be understood as ‘ scraping’. The names of the עדים were scraped (or scored) on the document, and the witnesses signed, on their scored names. תוספות wonders: אף על גב דחקיקה חשיבה כתיבה כמו כתב על גבי טבלא ופנקס – Even though the rule is that engraving is considered writing, as we find the statement: ‘ He wrote the שטר upon a tablet or a board. The writing there was done by engraving, and nevertheless we consider it a valid writing. Nonetheless – הכא לא חשיב כתב על גבי כתב דפסלינן בפרק ב' (לקמן דף יט, א) – Here in our case, it is not considered as writing upon a writing, which we invalidate in the second פרק‎. Wherever writing is required, if it is written over a previous writing, it is not considered valid writing. תוספות is asking that similarly here this scoring should be considered the first writing. The signing by the witness on top of the scoring is writing upon writing. This should make the חתימה פסול‎. תוספות explains, we are not concerned that the scoring should be being considered ‘writing’ – דאין כאן כתיבה גמורה אלא שרושמין קצת כדי לחתום עליו עדים‎ – For here the scoring is not exactly writing as in the case of כתב ע"ג טבלא, rather they mark the paper slightly in order that the witnesses should sign, over the mark. The scoring is not the usual manner in which things are written and recorded (it may become illegible in a while); as opposed to engraving on a tablet, which is the usual and customary manner to record certain data. תוספות bolsters his answer. ועוד דאפילו דיו על גבי סיקרא חשיבא לקמן בפרק ב' (גם זה שם) כתב לענין שבת‎ – And furthermore even if one writes with regular ink on red dye it is considered, later in the second פרק, as writing in regards to שבת‎. If one writes בדיו ע"ג סיקרא בשבת he is חייב‎. It is a valid כתב‎. אף על פי שהסיקרא לבדה היא כתב‎ – Even though that writing with סיקרא only, is also considered writing. The reason is because the second כתב with דיו is different and an improvement on the original כתב of סיקרא‎. In our case the signing of the עדים is certainly different and better than the original markings. It is therefore considered a כתב‎. This concludes תוספות defense of פירוש רש"י. תוספות has, however, another question on רש"י. אבל לשון מקרעין לא משמע כפירוש הקונטרס דהוה ליה למימר מסטרין‎ – However the expression 'מקרעין', which means tearing, does not support sרש"י' explanation for according to רש"י, the גמרא should have said 'מסרטין', we scratch (score). This would have been the appropriate word. תוספות offers his explanation: ורבינו תם פירש שלוקחין נייר חלק ומקרעין עליו שמות העדים מעבר לעבר‎ – And the ר"ת explains the process of מקרעין; that we take a blank paper and we tear out of the paper through and through, the names of the witnesses. A stencil is made with the names of the witnesses cut out – ומשימין אותו על הקלף שהגט כתוב בו‎ – And we place this stencil over the parchment upon which the גט is written. The stencil with the cut out names, is placed below the actual גט; over the area where the עדים usually sign – ובאין העדים וממלאים את הקרעים דיו ונכרת הכתיבה על גבי הגט‎ – And the witnesses come and fill in the cutouts with ink and the written names are observed upon the גט‎. תוספות poses a question to his explanation בירושלמי פריך והלא כתב ראשונה הוא פירוש ואין הגט יכול להתקיים בחותמיו‎ – The גמרא in תלמוד ירושלמי asks: But is this not the first hand writing?! The explanation of the sתלמוד ירושלמי' question is: The גט cannot be authenticated by its signatories; since it is not the handwriting of the witnesses. The witnesses are merely filling in the cutouts on the stencil. We cannot recognize their signature. The signatures will appear in the shape that the first and original preparers of the stencil formed. ומשני כשהרחיב להם את הקרעים והעדים אין ממלאין לגמרי כל רחב הקרע: And the תלמוד ירושלמי answers that he made the cutouts very wide for them and the witnesses are instructed not to fill in completely the entire width of the cutout. We can therefore recognize the uniqueness of their signature in the manner they fill in the cutouts. S UMMARY There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the explanation of 'מקרעין להן נייר'. According to רש"י it means that the גט itself is scored in the place where the עדים sign. The עדים sign on the actual scoring. This is not considered כתב ע"ג כתב since the scoring is merely a marking not an actual כתב‎. תוספות argues that term מקרעין is inappropriate according to רש"י. The term מסרטין should have been used. תוספות maintains that their names were cut out on a stencil. The stencil was placed over the גט‎. The עדים filled in the cutout. According to the ירושלמי the cutouts were made wide so the עדים filled in the cutouts only partially. This enabled בי"ד to be מקיים their חתימות‎. T HINKING IT OVER What does the term 'נייר חלק' signify; according to רש"י‎? תוספות‎? 2. תוספות discusses whether the חתימה is a כתב ע"ג כתב‎. However since we maintain that עדי מסירה כרתי, why is there a concern that it is a כתב ע"ג כתב‎?
קורין לפניהם וחותמין‎—We read it for them and then they sign O VERVIEW The גמרא teaches that if the עדים cannot read the שטר it is read to them and afterwards they sign. An עד may testify only if he has firsthand knowledge of his testimony. Any information which others tell him cannot be admitted as עדות‎. This is called עד מפי עד‎. ----------------- תוספות anticipates the following question: ולא הוי עד מפי עד‎ – And this is not considered as a witness who testifies what he heard from the mouth of another witness. עדים may testify to only what they know themselves. Testifying what others told them is hearsay, and not acceptable as testimony. Seemingly here where the עדים do not understand what is written in the שטר; they merely know what is told to them; it should be considered עד מפי עד and be פסול‎. תוספות responds: שאין צריכין להעיד על עיקר המעשה אלא שאומר שכך כתוב בשטר‎ – [For] the people who read the שטר for the עדים, do not have to testify concerning the actual transaction. Rather the reader merely says this is what is written in the שטר‎. Therefore – ובעי שנים קורין‎ – [And] it is required that two people read the document for the עדים‎. When they hear what the two readers are saying, they will realize if it is the same as what they know; i.e. that it is a גט without any stipulations, or a loan for the amount of money the לוה told them, etc. Since there are two who are reading the שטר, the עדי חתימה are assured that they are reading the שטר truthfully. או אפילו יחיד‎ – Or even a single individual may read it for them; provided that the עדים are sure that this individual is one whom they can totally trust. He will not deceive them – כגון רב נחמן וספרי דדייני דאית להו אימתא כדלקמן בפרק ב' (דף יט, ב): for instance ר"נ and his judicial scribes, because the scribes fear ר"נ and will read it truthfully as the גמרא states later in the second פרק‎. The reading is merely a גילוי מילתא‎ – telling the עדים something that will eventually be found out for certain – a מילתא דעבידא לגלויי; such a testimony is not considered עד מפי עד‎. S UMMARY If the עדים are aware firsthand of the transaction taking place, they may sign the שטר for this transaction, even if they cannot read the שטר, provided that two people read it for them and it correlates to the transaction they know is transpiring. If the עדים personally know an individual who will definitely not deceive them, they may depend on his reading alone. T HINKING IT OVER 1. What would be the general rule as to when עד מפי עד is permitted and when not? 2. ספרי דדייני literally means the ‘scribes of the judges’. What does it actually mean concerning ר"נ וספרי דדייני‎?
לא יתנו לאחר מיתה‎—They should not give it after death O VERVIEW There is a rule that זכין לאדם שלא בפניו‎. One may acquire possession on behalf of another without the beneficiary’s knowledge; provided that it is solely for his benefit. If for instance ראובן wants to gift a field to לוי; as soon as ראובן gives the שטר מתנה to שמעון and tells him to acquire it on behalf of לוי, then immediately לוי becomes the new owner of the field, since it is for sלוי' benefit. The שטר does not have to reach לוי for him to become the new owner. There is a dispute between ר' מאיר and the רבנן if it is considered beneficial for a slave (עבד כנעני), to be freed. Consequently there is a difference if a third party can be זוכה the שטר שחרור from the אדון on behalf of the עבד‎. According to the רבנן he may, since it is a זכות to be free. However according to ר"מ he cannot be זוכה since there is a down side for an עבד to become free. According to ר"מ the עבד will become free only when the שטר שחרור comes into his possession. Up to that point the master may change his mind and retract the שטר שחרור‎. The משנה, which the גמרא quotes here, states that if someone said תנו שטר שחרור זה לעבדי and the שטר did not reach the עבד until the master died; the rule is לא יתנו לאחר מיתה‎. Our תוספות will be discussing whether this משנה is according to both ר"מ and the רבנן or not. ----------------- פירש בקונטרס ואפילו רבנן דאמרי זכות הוא לעבד וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו‎ – רש"י explained that this דין of לא יתנו לאחר מיתה applies even according to the רבנן who maintain that it is beneficial for the slave to become free and we may act beneficially for a person even not in his presence, i.e. he has no knowledge of it. It would therefore seem that as soon as the agent received the שטר שחרור, the עבד is freed. There should be no דין of לא יתנו לאחר מיתה‎. Nonetheless, רש"י maintains that the agent of the שטר שחרור cannot acquire this שטר on behalf of the עבד to the degree that the עבד is freed immediately upon the agent’s acceptance of the שטר‎. The explanation that רש"י gives is that – נהי דלהכי זכה דלא מצי מיהדר ביה‎ – granted that the agent does acquire the שטר on behalf of the עבד to the extent that the master cannot retract the שטר and the freedom associated with it, since it is a זכות for the עבד to be free; nevertheless – מודו רבנן דכל כמה דלא אתא גיטא לידיה לא הוי משוחרר‎ – The רבנן admit that as long as the שטר שחרור does not reach the hand of the עבד, the עבד is not freed. Therefore since the אדון died before the עבד actually received the שטר שחרור, he cannot be freed with this שטר שחרור‎. The heirs of the אדון have already acquired the עבד at the moment the אדון died. The שטר becomes worthless because the original אדון is no longer the owner of this עבד‎. תוספות disagrees with רש"י. ודבר תימה פירושו כיון דזכות הוא פשיטא דזוכה לאלתר‎ – And sרש"י' explanation is astounding! Since it is beneficial for the עבד to become free, it is obvious that he acquires his freedom immediately; as soon as the שטר שחרור is delivered to the possession of the agent. כיון דאמרינן גבי שחרור תן כזכי כדאמר לקמן‎ – Since we maintain concerning the process of שחרור, that when the master tells the agent, ‘ give this שטר שחרור to my עבד’, it is as if he said, ‘ acquire this שטר on behalf of the עבד’, as the גמרא states later on. How can רש"י claim that [the אדון cannot retract, but] the עבד is not yet free?! תוספות bolsters his argument against רש"י. ורש"י בעצמו חזר בו שפירש לקמן (דף יג, א) על משנה זו דהאומר תנו גרסינן‎ – And רש"י himself retracted this opinion for he explained later concerning this very same משנה that the text of the משנה should read ‘if one says תנו – give’ which is the plural form of ‘you (plural) give’, as opposed to תן which is the singular form – ולא גרסינן תן גט זה‎ – however the text does not read ‘give this גט’ in the singular; which would indicate that he is addressing his agent, and actually transferring the גט now to the agent with the intent that it be acquired for the עבד‎. Rather he said תנו in the plural; he was telling the people near him, that eventually [when he dies] they should present his עבד with the שטר שחרור‎ – שלא מסר ליד השליח בחייו‎ – for he did not transfer the שטר שחרור into the possession of the agent while he was living. On the contrary he told the people that only after his death should the שטר שחרור be given to the עבד‎ – לפיכך לא נחלקו חכמים בדבר לומר שמשעה ראשנה זכה לו השליח לעבד‎ – Therefore the חכמים did not contest ר"מ in this case to say that from the first moment that he said ‘give’, the agent acquired the שטר שחרור on behalf of the עבד‎ – להיות משוחרר: that the עבד should be freed. There was no transference of the שטר שחרור during the lifetime of the אדון‎. The entire concept of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו does not apply here. The אדון did not transfer the שטר to anyone while he was alive, that he should be זוכה it for the עבד‎. We see from this רש"י that had the אדון actually transferred the שטר שחרור to the שליח and told him תן שטר שחרור זה לעבדי then this would depend on the מחלוקת between ר"מ ורבנן if it is a זכות for the עבד to be משוחרר, and consequently according to the רבנן he becomes משוחרר immediately. S UMMARY רש"י explains the דין of לא יתנו לאחר מיתה in a case where the גט was given over to an agent to deliver it to the עבד‎. Nonetheless, even according to the חכמים who maintain that it is a זכות for the עבד to be משוחרר, we cannot give the שטר שחרור to the עבד after מיתת האדון‎. The חכמים agree that even though while the אדון is alive he cannot retract the גט, once he gave it to the agent, since it is a זכות for the עבד, nevertheless the עבד does not become משוחרר until the שטר שחרור is in his possession. תוספות maintains that this cannot be. If we maintain that שחרור is a זכות for the עבד, then as soon as the agent receives the שטר שחרור the עבד is משוחרר‎. That explanation of the משנה is, as רש"י himself states later on, that the אדון never relinquished the שטר‎. He told people that eventually they should give the שטר to the עבד‎. Since the אדון never transferred the שטר while he was alive, there can be no זכיה for the עבד‎. After he dies, there is no גט לאחר מיתה‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. How does תוספות interpret this משנה of לא יתנו לאחר מיתה‎? 2. How do some commentaries explain רש"י in our גמרא‎?
מילתא דאיתיה בשטרות לא קתני‎—An item which is applicable by other documents he does not mention O VERVIEW The גמרא maintains presently that the similarities between גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים that the ברייתא mentions (including פסול ערכאות) are limited to those similarities that are exclusive to גטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים and do not apply to other שטרות‎. The משנה states ‘all שטרות that are cleared by ערכאות are כשר except for ג"נ וש"ע’. The גמרא there assumes this הכשר to include שטר מתנה as well. Therefore the גמרא asks how can ערכאות be כשר by שטר מתנה‎. There are no עדי ישראל to effectuate the קנין‎. When a שטר is just for proof - לראיה, then ערכאות can be כשר; but how can ערכאות make a קנין‎! The גמרא there gives two (seemingly conflicting) answers which are mentioned in this תוספות‎. ------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא פסולא דערכאות איתא בשטר מתנה כדמפרש לקמן (דף י, ב) – And if you will say; but the פסול of ערכאות which is mentioned in the ברייתא concerning גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים is applicable by a שטר מתנה, as the גמרא interprets later the משנה of ערכאות; that when the משנה states that ערכאות are כשר by all שטרות except מגיטי נשים, it really means that ערכאות are כשר by שטרות that are only שטרי ראיה‎ – חוץ מכגיטי נשים‎ – Excluding the validity of ערכאות from any שטרות similar to גיטי נשים ; in the sense that גט אשה is a שטר קנין. The פסול of ערכאות extends to all שטרי קנין‎. This refers to שטרי מתנה as well; meaning that פסול ערכאות is a מילתא דאיתיה בשטרות, for it applies to שטר מתנה as well. Why therefore do we include the פסול ערכאות in this ברייתא‎? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהשתא סבר כאידך שינויא דלקמן: And one can say; that at this point the גמרא is of the opinion like the other answer that the גמרא gives later. The גמרא there in the other answer maintains that ערכאות are valid by שטר מתנה (as opposed to גיטי נשים), since דינא דמלכותא דינא, even by a שטר קנין‎. Therefore the פסול of ערכאות is only by גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים and not by other שטרות including שטר מתנה‎. S UMMARY When the גמרא states that the similarities between גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים are limited only to those similarities that do not apply to שאר שטרות, the גמרא will have to assume the view that by שטר מתנה there is no פסול of ערכאות‎. The גמרא at this point cannot assume the view that since שטר מתנה is a שטר קנין therefore ערכאות are פסול‎. T HINKING IT OVER תוספות obviously knew in his question of the other view in the גמרא later; namely that by שטר מתנה there is no פסול of ערכאות; what was the question in the first place?
