קשיא דר' אלעזר אדר' אלעזר תרי תנאי ואליבא דר"א
The Gemara asks: If the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, this is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the explicit statement of Rabbi Elazar in the last clause of the mishna, where he rules that a scribe may not write the standard part of a bill of divorce in advance, and the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the first clause of the mishna that a scribe may write the standard part of a bill of divorce in advance. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.
ר' שבתי אמר חזקיה משום קטטה ור"מ היא דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי
The Gemara returns to discussing the ordinance mentioned in the mishna. Rabbi Shabbetai says that Ḥizkiyya says: The ordinance mentioned in the mishna was not instituted for the benefit of scribes, allowing them to prepare the standard part of bills of divorce in advance. The ordinance was instituted due to the desire to prevent a quarrel, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and there is no need for the bill of divorce to be written for the sake of the woman.
ובדין הוא דאפי' תורף נמי לכתוב וזמנין דשמעה ליה לסופר דקא כתיב וסברה איהו קאמר ליה והוה לה קטטה בהדיה
He continues to explain the ordinance: And by right it should have been that the scribe would be permitted to write even the essential part of the bill of divorce as well. But sometimes there might be a wife who hears the scribe who by chance is writing in advance a bill of divorce with her name, and she thinks that her husband told him to write the bill of divorce on his behalf, and she will have a quarrel with him. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the scribe may not write the essential part of the bill of divorce in advance, as it includes the names of the husband and the wife.
רב חסדא אמר אבימי משום תקנת עגונות אמרי לה ר"מ ואמרי לה ר"א
The Gemara suggests another understanding of the ordinance mentioned in the mishna. Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: The reason for the ordinance is due to the desire to provide a remedy for deserted wives. How so? Some say that he explained the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and some say that he explained it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.
אמרי לה ר"מ דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי ובדין הוא דאפי' תורף נמי לכתוב וזמנין דהוה ליה קטטה בהדה ורתח עלה וזריק ליה ניהלה ומעגן ומותיב לה
The Gemara clarifies: Some say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce; and by right it should have been that the scribe would be permitted to write, in advance, even the essential part of the bill of divorce as well. But sometimes there could be a situation when the husband has a quarrel with his wife and becomes angry with her, and he might throw the bill of divorce to her and desert her and leave her divorced because he possessed a bill of divorce that had been prepared in advance. The Sages therefore instituted that a complete bill of divorce may not be prepared in advance to ensure that it would take time for the husband to obtain one, in the hope that he would calm down in the interim and reconsider.
אמרי לה ר"א דאמר עידי מסירה כרתי ובדין הוא דאפי' טופס נמי לא לכתוב וזמנין דבעי למיזל למדינת הים ולא אשכח ספרא ושביק לה ואזיל ומעגן ומותיב לה:
Some say that he explains the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce; and by right it should have been that scribes would not be permitted to write in advance even the standard part of the bill of divorce as well, due to a decree lest they come to write the essential part in advance. But sometimes the husband needs to travel to a country overseas, and he will not find a scribe who can write the bill of divorce for him, and he will abandon her and go and desert her and leave her in this position. The Sages instituted that scribes may write the standard part of the bill of divorce in advance, so that they can finish it quickly by simply adding the essential part.
ומקום הזמן: קפסיק ותני לא שנא מן הנישואין ולא שנא מן האירוסין
§ The mishna teaches that the scribe must leave a place for the names and a place for the date. The Gemara comments: The tanna categorically teaches this halakha; it is no different if the divorce is from the state of marriage, and it is no different if the divorce is from the state of betrothal.
בשלמא מן הנישואין בין למ"ד משום בת אחותו איכא בין למ"ד משום פירי איכא
The Gemara clarifies: Granted, in the case of a divorce from the state of marriage, it is understood why the bill of divorce must be dated. Whether according to the one who said that the reason for writing the date on a bill of divorce is due to a situation where one marries the daughter of his sister, to prevent the husband from protecting her if she commits adultery by giving her an undated bill of divorce and claiming that they had been divorced before she committed adultery with the other man, there is a reason to record the date, or whether according to the one who said that it is due to a concern for her produce, to enable her to collect the produce of her usufruct property from the moment they are divorced, there is a reason to record the date.
אלא מן האירוסין בשלמא למ"ד משום בת אחותו איכא אלא למ"ד משום פירי ארוסה מי אית לה פירי
But in the case of a divorce from the state of betrothal, granted, according to the one who said that the date is written on a bill of divorce due to a situation where one marries the daughter of his sister, there is the same concern where she is divorced after being betrothed, as the halakhot of adultery take effect from the time of betrothal. But according to the one who said that it is due to a concern for her produce, does a betrothed woman have produce? In any case, the husband has a right to use his wife’s property only after they are married. Therefore, it is not necessary to protect her rights by dating the bill of divorce to show when the husband’s rights to her property terminate.
אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא שמעית מיניה דעולא דאמר משום תקנת ולד ולא ידענא מאי ניהו כיון דשמעיתא להא דתניא האומר כתבו גט לארוסתי לכשאכנסנה אגרשנה אינו גט ואמר עולא מה טעם גזירה שמא יאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה ה"נ גזירה שמא יאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה
Rav Amram said: I heard this matter from Ulla, who said that the date is written on the bill of divorce for the benefit of the child, and I did not know what this benefit is. Once I heard that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says: Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed, as when I will bring her in to my home in marriage I will divorce her with it, it is not a valid bill of divorce. And Ulla said: What is the reason that it is not a valid bill of divorce? Since once he marries her she may become pregnant, there is a rabbinic decree due to the concern lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son, as it was written while they were betrothed. Here too, the reason the scribe must leave the place of the date in a bill of divorce for a betrothed woman is that the husband may marry her before divorcing her, and there is a rabbinic decree due to the concern lest they say that receipt of her bill of divorce precedes conception of her son.
א"ר זירא אמר ר' אבא בר שילא אמר רב המנונא סבא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב הלכה כר"א קרי רב עליה דר"א טובינא דחכימי
§ Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Abba bar Sheila says that Rav Hamnuna Sava says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha with regard to writing the standard portion of the bill of divorce in advance is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that such a bill of divorce is invalid. Upon hearing this ruling, Rav proclaimed about Rabbi Elazar: He is the most gratified of the Sages, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.
ואפי' בשאר שטרות נמי והאמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא האי אשרתא דדייני דמיכתבה מקמי דליסהדי סהדי אחתימת ידייהו פסולה אלמא מיחזי כשיקרא ה"נ מיחזי כשיקרא
The Gemara asks: And is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar even with regard to other documents as well, that it is permitted for scribes to write the standard portion of other documents in advance? But didn’t Rav Pappi say in the name of Rava: With regard to this ratification of judges, which serves to confirm the authenticity of a promissory note that was written before the witnesses had testified about their signatures on the promissory note, it is invalid, even if the witnesses later attested that those were their signatures. Apparently it has the appearance of falsehood, because the court ratified the document before hearing the testimony. Here too, if one writes the documents in advance, they have the appearance of a falsehood.
וליתא מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אומר היה ר"מ אפילו מצאו באשפה חתמו ונתנו לה כשר ואפילו רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר"מ אלא בגיטי נשים דבעינן כתיבה לשמה אבל בשאר שטרות לא
The Gemara notes: And Rav Pappi’s statement that all documents written in advance are invalid because they have the appearance of falsehood is not accepted, because of the statement of Rav Naḥman. As Rav Naḥman said: Rabbi Meir, who holds that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, would say: Even if a husband found an unsigned bill of divorce in the garbage, and he had it signed and gave it to his wife, it is valid, as he holds that the manner of the writing of the bill of divorce does not affect whether or not it is a valid bill of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Meir only with regard to bills of divorce, as they hold that we require the writing to be for her sake; but with regard to other documents, they do not disagree.
דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן שטר שלוה בו ופרעו אינו חוזר ולוה בו שכבר נמחל שעבודו טעמא דנמחל שעבודו אבל משום שיקרא לא חיישינן:
The Gemara comments: The proof of this is that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a promissory note with which one borrowed money and the borrower then repaid the debt, he may not borrow money again with it. The reason is that its lien has already been forgiven. Once the debt has been repaid, the lien resulting from the loan is no longer in force. The witnesses did not sign the document again at the time of the second loan, so the lien will not be in effect, and the loan will have the status of one by oral agreement. The Gemara infers: The reason that he cannot reuse the document is that its lien has been forgiven, so that the document is no longer accurate. But as for the fact that it has the appearance of falsehood, as it was written prior to the second loan, we are not concerned.