"And any name he has"
Gittin 34
On Gittin 34b, the Mishnah describes a decree from Rabban Gamliel the Elder that they write Ploni and and name he has.
Rabbi Josh Yuter wrote the following on Facebook:
The Mishnah:
מַתְנִי׳ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהֵא כּוֹתֵב: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכׇל שׁוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״, ״אִשָּׁה פְּלוֹנִית וְכׇל שׁוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ״ – מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.
MISHNA: Initially, the husband would change his name and her name, from the names by which they were known where they formerly lived to the names by which they were known where the bill of divorce was written, and write the name of his city and the name of her city. One was not required to list all of the names by which the husband and the wife were known, but only the names in the place where the bill of divorce was being written. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that the scribe should write in the bill of divorce: The man so-and-so, and any other name that he has, and: The woman so-and-so, and any other name that she has. The reason for this ordinance was for the betterment of the world, as perhaps the people of a different city would not recognize the name written in the bill of divorce, and would claim that this bill of divorce does not belong to her.
Aside from any dispute among Rishonim about whether the actual text is “Ploni [or Shmaryahu, insert name here] and any name he has” / or whether the actual text is “Shmaryahu, and Shimon, and Shimmy”, there is a passage a bit later about eidim and the name Ploni, and whether that is literally Ploni or should be substituted. I may talk about it then.
I don’t think manuscript variants will be helpful. Except perhaps the spelling of שום instead of שם, though שם is in some variants, may be helpful. It seems archaic, and if it were out of place in Mishnaic Hebrew, then that would indicate that these are words that should be placed into the get.
The real helpful sugya, I think, is the Yerushalmi parallel. Consider this:
איש פלוני וכל שם שיש לו.
(a) (Mishnah): Ploni and every name that he has.
הגע עצמך דהוה שמיה ראובן ואפיק שמיה שמעון.
(b) Exert yourself [and you will understand why R. Gamliel enacted]! If his name was Reuven, and he called himself Shimon [in the Get, it is Pasul! Below, we explain why he would do so.]
אלא אני פלוני וכל שם שיש לי.
Rather, [R. Gamliel enacted to write] 'I, Ploni and every name that I have.'
The Yerushalmi continues in this manner. Ani = “I”, and sheyesh li is “that I have”. For instance, אמר רבי אילי בתחילה צריך לומר אני פלוני (שמיהודה) [צ"ל ביהודה - ר"ן] עם כל שם שיש לי בגליל
There is a big semantic difference between לי and לו. With לי, it cannot be directing that he should include other names. It has to be the literal wording that it included in the get.
There was another thing on that Yerushalmi matchup page I found amusing:
While an interesting and important point about name variation, this is a great place to mention it! Here, they wrote Rabbi Illa, and all names that he had. :)