Gittin 26aגיטין כ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 26a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26aכ״ו א

לא רצה האב אינה מקודשת

and if the father does not desire it, she is not betrothed. It is therefore evident that according to Rabbi Shimon, there is retroactive clarification when one makes the outcome dependent on the decision of others, as in this case whether or not this betrothal takes effect is dependent on the desire of the father.

אמר ליה בין לר' יהודה בין לר"ש לא שנא תולה בדעת עצמו ולא שנא תולה בדעת אחרים אית להו ברירה

Rava said to Rav Mesharshiyya: Whether according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or whether according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is no different if one makes the outcome dependent on his own decision, and it is no different if one makes it dependent on the decision of others; they both accept the principle of retroactive clarification.

והתם כדקתני טעמא אמרו לו לר"מ אי אתה מודה שמא יבקע הנוד ונמצא זה שותה טבלים למפרע אמר להם לכשיבקע:

Rava explains: And there, in the mishna about one who purchases wine from Samaritans, they do not prohibit him from relying on the separation that he will later perform because they do not accept the principle of retroactive clarification. Rather, the reason they do not prohibit him from relying on the separation that he will later perform is as the Tosefta (Demai 8:7) teaches: The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Don’t you concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst before he manages to separate the teruma, and this person will have been found retroactively to be drinking untithed produce? Rabbi Meir said to them: When it actually bursts, there will be a concern. In any event, from the question that they addressed to Rabbi Meir, it is clear that they would accept the principle of retroactive clarification in this case.

מתני׳ הכותב טופסי גיטין צריך שיניח מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקום הזמן

MISHNA: With regard to a scribe who writes the standard part [tofes] of bills of divorce in advance, so that when one requests a bill of divorce, he will need to add only the details unique to this case, he must leave empty the place in the bill of divorce for the name of the man, and the place for the name of the woman, and the place for the date.

שטרי מלוה צריך שיניח מקום המלוה מקום הלוה מקום המעות מקום הזמן

If a scribe writes the standard part of loan documents, he must leave empty the place of the name of the lender, the place of the name of the borrower, the place of the amount of the money being loaned, and the place of the date.

שטרי מקח צריך שיניח מקום הלוקח ומקום המוכר מקום המעות מקום השדה ומקום הזמן מפני התקנה

If the scribe writes the standard part of documents of sale of land, he must leave empty the place for the name of the purchaser, and the place for the name of the seller, the place for the amount of the money for which the land is being purchased, the place for the description of the field that is being purchased, and the place of the date when the sale occurs. This is necessary due to the ordinance, as the Gemara will explain.

ר' יהודה פוסל בכולן ר' אלעזר מכשיר בכולן חוץ מגיטי נשים שנאמר (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה לשמה:

Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of these documents if their standard parts were written in advance. Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce, as it is stated in the Torah: “And he writes for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), indicating that he must write the bill of divorce for her sake. Therefore, one may not write even the standard part of the bill of divorce in advance, as that would not qualify as writing the bill of divorce for her sake.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל צריך שיניח אף מקום הרי את מותרת לכל אדם ור' אלעזר היא דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי ובעינן כתיבה לשמה

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One writing a bill of divorce in advance must also leave the place on the standard portion of the bill of divorce to write the essential phrase of: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. And the unattributed opinion of the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and we require the writing of the essential part of the bill of divorce to be for her sake. If one holds the other opinion, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, then the words “And he writes for her” are referring to the signing of the bill of divorce, and the writing itself need not be done for her sake.

וצריכא

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for Shmuel to mention that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar in this mishna, as well as Rabbi Elazar’s opinion in the previous chapter with regard to the mishnayot that discuss writing a bill of divorce on a surface that is attached to the ground (21b) and the writing of a bill of divorce by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor (22b).

דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא בההיא הוא דאיכא לאוקמה כר"א דקתני אין כותבין וקתני כתבו

As, if he had taught us that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar only with regard to this first mishna (21b), which discusses writing a bill of divorce on a surface that is attached to the ground, one could have said it is only that mishna that can be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as that mishna teaches: One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground, and it teaches in the next clause: If one wrote it on something that is attached to the ground; and there the Gemara proves from the comparison between these two clauses that the mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

אבל סיפא דקתני שאין קיום הגט אלא בחותמיו אימא ר"מ היא דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי

However, in the latter clause of the next mishna (22b), which teaches that the reason a bill of divorce may be written by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is that the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, one could say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna is discussing a case where the entire bill of divorce was written by the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor. Therefore, it was necessary for Shmuel to state that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is discussing a case where the essential part of the bill of divorce was left empty.

ואי אשמעי' בההיא ההיא נמי איכא לאוקמה כר"א אבל הא אימא מדסיפא ר"א הוי רישא לאו ר"א צריכא:

And if he had taught us with regard to that mishna (22b), then it would be possible to say: That mishna can also be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as it is explained that the mishna is referring to the writing of the standard portion, but with regard to this mishna here, say: Since the last clause is explicitly attributed to Rabbi Elazar, the first clause must not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, it was necessary for Shmuel to note that each of three mishnayot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

מפני התקנה: מאי תקנה אמר ר' יונתן מפני תקנת סופר ור"א היא דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי ובדין הוא דאפי' טופס נמי לא לכתוב ומשום תקנת סופרים שרו רבנן

The mishna teaches that the scribe may write the standard part of the document in advance, leaving empty the essential part, due to the ordinance. The Gemara asks: To what ordinance is the mishna referring? Rabbi Yonatan says: Due to the ordinance for the benefit of a scribe, i.e., to enable a scribe to write the standard part of a document in advance so that when a customer arrives he will not need to write the document hurriedly. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. And according to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, by right it should have been that the scribe would not write even the standard part of the document in advance, as that part must also be written for her sake, but due to the ordinance for the benefit of scribes, the Sages permitted it.

ר' יהודה פוסל בכולן גזר טופס אטו תורף גזר שטרות אטו גיטין

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of these documents, not only bills of divorce, even if only their standard parts were written in advance. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda decreed that one may not write the standard part of a document in advance due to the concern lest the scribes eventually come to write the essential part of a document [toref ] in advance as well. Similarly, he decreed that this halakha applies to all documents, which need not be written for anyone’s sake, due to bills of divorce.

ור"א מכשיר בכולן חוץ מגיטי נשים טופס אטו תורף גזר שטרות אטו גיטין לא גזר:

The mishna continues: And Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce. The Gemara explains his reasoning: Rabbi Elazar decreed that one may not write the standard part of a document in advance due to the concern lest the scribes eventually come to write the essential part of the document in advance. However, he did not decree that this halakha applies to all documents, which need not be written for anyone’s sake, due to bills of divorce.

שנאמר וכתב לה: והא כי כתיב לה אתורף הוא דכתיב

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar invalidates bills of divorce when the standard part of the document was written in advance, as it is stated in the Torah: “And he writes for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which teaches that it must be written for her sake. The Gemara asks: But when it is written: “And he writes for her,” it is about the essential part of a document that it is written, and not about the standard part.

אלא אימא משום שנאמר וכתב לה לשמה

The Gemara answers: Rather, say that Rabbi Elazar invalidates bills of divorce when the standard part of the bill of divorce is written in advance because it is stated with regard to the essential part of the bill of divorce: “And he writes for her,” which teaches that it must be written for her sake. In other words, Rabbi Elazar decrees that even the standard part of the document must be written for her sake, due to the fact that the Torah delineates this requirement with regard to the essential part of the bill of divorce.