Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WRITING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THEY ARE NEEDED

(a) (Mishnah): One who writes Tofsim of Gitin (the part which is the same for anyone) must leave blank the names of the husband, wife and the date (until the husband tells him to write);
(b) One who writes Tofsim of loan documents must leave blank the names of the lender, borrower, the amount of the loan and the date;
(c) One who writes Tofsim of sale documents must leave blank the names of the buyer, seller, the price, the field and the date;

1. This is an enactment.

(d) R. Yehudah says, all of these cases are invalid; R. Elazar says, all are valid, except for Gitin of divorce, as it says "He will write for her" - Lishmah.
(e) (Gemara - Rav Yehudah): On a Get, he must also postpone writing 'You are permitted to any man';

1. The Mishnah is as R. Elazar, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given, and a Get must be Lishmah.

(f) It was necessary for Rav Yehudah to say that all 3 Mishnayos (ours, 21B, and 22B) are as R. Elazar.
(g) Had he only said it by the first Mishnah (writing a Get while attached), we would have thought only that is as R. Elazar, to resolve the contradiction between the beginning of the Mishnah (We do not write a Get on something attached) and the end of the Mishnah (if he wrote it attached);

1. But the second Mishnah (a deaf person, lunatic or minor may write a Get), which explains that a Get is validated through its signatures - one might have thought, that is as R. Meir, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that sign it;
2. Had Rav Yehudah only established that Mishnah as R. Elazar, one might have thought that our Mishnah is not as R. Elazar, since R. Elazar argues in the end of our Mishnah -Rav Yehudah teaches, this is not so.

(h) (Mishnah): This is an enactment.
(i) Question: What is this enactment?
(j) Answer #1 (R. Yonason): An enactment to help scribes; the Mishnah is as R. Elazar, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given.

1. Really, we should require even the Tofes to be written Lishmah (as a decree, on account of the Toref); Chachamim were lenient, to enable scribes to start writing Gitin before the husband requests one.
2. R. Yehudah says that all are invalid - he decrees that the Tofes of a Get must be written Lishmah, on account of the Toref;

i. He decrees this by other documents as well, on account of Gitin.

3. R. Elazar says that all are valid, except for Gitin of divorce - he decrees that the Tofes must be written Lishmah, on account of the Toref;

i. He does not decree by other documents, on account of Gitin.

4. (Mishnah): As it says, "He will write for her".
5. Question: But the Torah only required he write the Toref Lishmah!
6. Answer: The Mishnah means, because it says, "He will write (the Toref) for her" - Lishmah (R. Elazar requires even the Tofes to be Lishmah).

7. Contradiction: R. Elazar contradicts himself (Rav Yehudah established the first Tana to be R. Elazar - and he does not require the Tofes to be Lishmah)!
8. Answer: Tana'im argue regarding the opinion of R. Elazar.

(k) Answer #2 (To question (i) - R. Shabsi): The enactment is to avoid quarrels; is as R. Meir, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that signed it.

1. Really, even the Toref should not need to be written Lishmah;

i. It is an enactment not to write the Toref until the husband requests a Get, lest a woman hear a scribe writing a Get with her name. She will think that her husband requested the Get, and she will quarrel with her husband.

(l) Answer #3 (Rav Chisda): The enactment is to prevent Igun (a situation in which a woman cannot remarry).

1. Some explain, this is as R. Meir; others say, it is as R. Elazar.
2. Some explain, this is as R. Meir, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that signed it - really, even the Toref should not need to be written Lishmah;

i. We require the scribe to delay writing the Toref until requested, for sometimes the husband gets angry, and if a Get is already written he will divorce her immediately, and she may have difficulty remarrying.

3. Some explain, this is as is as R. Elazar, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given - really, even the Tofes should need to be written Lishmah;

i. We allow scribes to write Tofsim before the husband requests, for sometimes the husband is going abroad and wants to divorce his wife, but he does not have time to wait for a full Get to be written;
ii. If the scribe did not have Tofsim ready, he would leave without divorcing her.

(a) (Mishnah): (He must delay writing) the date.
(b) The Mishnah does not specify - apparently, this applies whether he divorces her from engagement or from Nisu'in.

1. We understand, if there was Nisu'in, the date is needed, whether the reason for the date is to prevent the husband from (fraudulently) saving her from being killed for adultery, or to prevent him from taking fruits of her property that he is not entitled to.
2. If the Get is from engagement - we understand why the date is needed according to the opinion that the date is to prevent saving her from being killed;
3. Question: According to the opinion that it is to prevent him from stealing her fruits - an engaged groom has no rights to fruits (why is the date needed)?
4. Answer (Rav Amram): Ula said, it is an enactment on behalf of the child - I did not understand this answer at first.

i. (Beraisa): A man said 'Write a Get to my engaged wife - after Nisu'in, I will divorce her' - the Get is invalid.
ii. (Ula): This is a decree, lest people will say that he divorced her before she became pregnant from him (since the Get mentions that she is only engagement, people will assume that he divorced her during engagement).
iii. (Rav Amram): Similarly, it was decreed to put the date even on a Get written for an engaged woman, lest (he will give it after Nisu'in and) people will think that she became pregnant from him after the divorce.

(c) (Ze'iri): The law is as R. Elazar.
(d) Question: Even regarding other documents (that the Tofes may be written in advance)?

1. But Rav Papi taught, if a validation of a document was written before verification of the signatures by the witnesses, the validation is invalid.
2. The reason is, it appears false (a validation says that the witnesses (already) confirmed the signatures); also, writing a monetary document without the request of the borrower/seller appears false!

(e) Answer: Rav Papi's law is wrong.

1. (Rav Nachman): According to R. Meir, if a man finds a Get (with the names of he and his wife) in the trash, if he had it signed and gave it, it is valid.
2. Chachamim only argue on R. Meir regarding Gitin of divorce, since they must be written Lishmah - they admit regarding monetary documents.

i. (R. Asi): A document was written for a loan; the loan was payed up. The borrower borrowed the same sum again from the lender - the original document is invalid for the second loan, since its power to obligate the borrower to pay was nullified when the first loan was paid.
ii. If not for the fact that its power was nullified, the document could be used again - we are not concerned that it looks false (it was written for a different loan).