Gittin 26a — the Talmud in English

If the father did not wish, she is not betrothed.

Since he had intercourse only on condition, and the condition was not fulfilled. And, on the other hand, if the father wished, she is betrothed, even though at the time of intercourse it was uncertain whether he wished or did not wish; nevertheless, we say: the matter is retroactively clarified that from the time of intercourse there was betrothal.

In any event, it is proven that it is not like Rava. For one must distinguish between “making it dependent on his own דעת” and “making it dependent on the דעת of others.”

He said to him

Rava to Rav Mesharsheya: In truth,

whether according to Rabbi Yehuda or according to Rabbi Shimon, it makes no difference whether one makes it dependent on his own דעת or whether one makes it dependent on the דעת of others,

and always

they hold that there is retroactive clarification.

And

if you say: If so, why did Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon maintain, concerning tithes, that he cannot say, “The tithe that I am destined to measure”

?

There, as the reason is stated

they said to him

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede

that one must be concerned

lest the flask burst, and it will emerge that this one retroactively drank untithed produce,

since the teruma would never be clarified?!

He said to them: When it bursts!

That is to say: There is no need for concern over this, since it is uncommon.

In any event, it is explained that the reason of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon is not because “there is no retroactive clarification,” but since they were concerned lest the flask burst.

Mishna:

One who writes formularies of bills of divorce,

a scribe who takes payment for writing the bill of divorce and wants to have bills of divorce prepared, because sometimes people come to hire him to write a bill of divorce, while he is occupied with writing other documents, and therefore he wants to have prepared documents in his possession—

although the scribe may write the entire wording of the document even before the husband commands him to write a bill of divorce for him, nevertheless

he must leave

empty in the bill of divorce the

place

where the name of

the man, and

likewise the

place

where the name of

the woman, and

likewise the

place

where

the date

of the divorce must be written.

And the same law applies to

loan documents—

although the scribe may write the entire wording of the document before the borrower comes before him, nevertheless

he must leave

the

place

where the name of

the lender,

and likewise the

place

where the name of

the borrower,

and likewise the

place

where the sum of

the money,

and likewise the

place

where

the date

of the loan must be written, so that it will not be an antecedent document.

And likewise concerning

documents of sale—

although the scribe may write the entire wording of the document even before the seller and the buyer come before him, nevertheless

he must leave

the

place

where the name of

the buyer, and

likewise the

place

where the name of

the seller,

and likewise the

place

where the sum of

the money,

and likewise the

place

where

the field

that he sold him must be written—where it is located and what its boundaries are—

and

likewise the

place

where

the date

of the sale must be written.

Because of the enactment.

Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies them all,

whether concerning a bill of divorce or concerning other documents; and even though he left these places empty, since the document was written before the parties requested him to write their document, it is a disqualified document.

Rabbi Elazar validates them all,

for in all documents the scribe may prepare the document before the parties come before him,

except for bills of divorce,

in which the scribe may not prepare the bills of divorce, and it is of no avail that the scribe leaves these places empty, since—

it is stated, “And he writes it for her”—for her sake!

And since the writing of the bill of divorce must be for the sake of the woman, the scribe may not prepare the bill of divorce before the husband commands him to write the bill of divorce.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

He must leave

empty

also

the

place

where in the bill of divorce

“Behold, you are permitted to any man,”

must be written, for this too is part of the essential portion of the bill of divorce.

And it is Rabbi Elazar.

The tanna of the Mishna holds according to the view of Rabbi Elazar,

who says: The witnesses of delivery effect the severance,

for the witnesses who see the giving of the bill of divorce from the husband’s hand into the woman’s hand are the witnesses who give the bill of divorce its force of severance, and not the witnesses of the signature; and what we require, that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce, is only because of the enactment of the Sages,

and

since the essential part of the bill of divorce is its writing and not its signature, therefore

we require

that the

writing

of the bill of divorce

be for her sake,

and not the signature of the bill of divorce; therefore, one must leave empty the place where “Behold, you are permitted to any man” is to be written.

And it is necessary,

and Shmuel had to say this concerning three Mishnayot: that the tanna of the Mishna holds according to the view of Rabbi Elazar, that the witnesses of delivery effect the severance; and it would not have been sufficient for Shmuel to say this concerning one Mishna.

For if he had taught us this only concerning the first one,

if Shmuel had said this only concerning the Mishna that the bill of divorce must be written after being detached and not while attached—

we would say:

In that one,

in the Mishna of “One does not write on something attached,”

it is that there is reason to establish it

we are compelled to establish the Mishna

according to Rabbi Elazar,

that the witnesses of delivery effect the severance.

For we have a contradiction in the Mishna:

it teaches

at the beginning

“One does not write

on something attached to the ground,”

and it teaches

at the end

“If he wrote it

while attached, detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid.” Therefore Shmuel had to resolve this by saying that the tanna holds like Rabbi Elazar, that the witnesses of delivery effect the severance; and the intention of the Mishna is to say that one does not write the formulary of the bill of divorce while attached, lest he come to write the essential portion of the bill of divorce while attached. But after the fact, if he wrote the formulary while attached, and detached it, and wrote the essential portion of the bill of divorce after it was detached, and gave it to her, it is valid.

But

in the

end

of that same Mishna, in which it is written, “Everyone is fit to write the bill of divorce,”

it teaches

at the end: “

For the bill of divorce is validated only by its signatures,”

and it implies that the Mishna comes to give a reason why everyone is fit to write the bill of divorce; and concerning this the Mishna says that the essential part of the bill of divorce is its signature and not its writing, and therefore everyone writes—

say,

we would say that the Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Meir, who says: The witnesses of signature effect the severance,

and the deaf-mute may also write the essential portion of the bill of divorce.

Therefore Shmuel had to teach us that the Mishna of “Everyone is fit to write the bill of divorce” applies only to the formulary, and an intelligent person must write the essential portion.

And if he had taught us this concerning that one,

even though Shmuel said that the Mishna stating that everyone is fit to write holds according to Rabbi Elazar, it could still be said that

that one too,

these Mishnayot,

can be established

it is possible to establish

according to Rabbi Elazar.

But this one,

in our Mishna,

say,

one could say:

Since the end

of the Mishna

is Rabbi Elazar,

for at the end Rabbi Elazar disputes the first tanna and holds that all are valid except for bills of divorce—

therefore we would say that the tanna of the

beginning

who validates even in the case of bills of divorce

does not

hold according to the view of

Rabbi Elazar,

and it is not necessary to leave empty the place of “Behold, you are permitted,” but according to Rabbi Meir; and the reason that it is necessary to leave empty the place of the names of the man and the woman is because of quarrel, as is explained later in the discussion.

It is necessary.

Therefore Shmuel had to teach us that even the beginning of the Mishna holds according to Rabbi Elazar, and therefore it is necessary to leave empty the place for the man and the woman so that the scribe will write the names for their sake; therefore Shmuel says that it is also necessary to leave empty the place of “Behold, you are permitted to any man”:

We learned in the Mishna the reason that the scribe must leave the place of the essential portion empty:

because of the enactment:

What is “the enactment”?

Rabbi Yonatan said:

Because of the enactment for the scribe,

they permitted the scribe to write the bill of divorce even before the husband commanded him to write it.

And it is Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of delivery effect the severance,

and therefore, by Torah law, the writing of the bill of divorce must be for its sake.

And by strict law, he should not write even the formulary,

and according to the essential law it should have been that we would not permit the scribe to write even the formulary without the husband’s command, since there is concern lest, as a result, the scribe come to write the essential portion not for its sake.

But because of the enactment for scribes,

so that he would have a prepared bill of divorce in his possession,

they permitted,

they permitted him

the Rabbis

to write the formulary not for its sake; and they issued a decree even concerning the other documents, that he should leave an empty place in the document, so that they would not come to err and validate also bills of divorce.

And

Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies them all,

even if he left the place of the essential portion empty—

because he

issued a decree concerning the formulary on account of the essential portion.

Therefore it is forbidden for him to write the formulary without a command from the husband. And again,

he issued a decree

and

concerning documents on account of bills of divorce.

It is forbidden for the scribe to prepare even the formulary of the document.

And Rabbi Elazar validates them all,

in all documents,

except for bills of divorce—

because he holds that

he issued a decree concerning the formulary on account of the essential portion,

and that it should be written for its sake, so that we would not err and validate also the essential portion when it was not written for its sake; but concerning other

documents on account of bills of divorce he did not issue a decree

.

We learned in the Mishna that the reason of Rabbi Elazar is

as it is stated, “And he writes it for her”

for her sake:

And the Gemara asks:

But when “for her” is written, is it not concerning the essential portion that it is written!

For what is written in the Torah—that the writing must be for its sake—applies only to the essential portion; why, then, does Rabbi Elazar hold that even the formulary must be written for its sake?

And it answers:

Rather, say,

the intention of Rabbi Elazar is not that this law is learned from the verse, but rather

because it is stated

in the Torah

“And he writes it for her,” for her sake,

that the essential portion must be written for its sake, therefore we also issue a decree concerning the formulary, that it must be written for its sake.

And we raise an objection: