Gittin 26b — the Talmud in English

An objection against Rabbi Elazar from [the words of] Rabbi Elazar!

Since we have established the beginning of the Mishna according to the view of Rabbi Elazar, and nevertheless the tanna permits the scribe to prepare the forms of bills of divorce, if so we have a contradiction in the Mishna, for in the latter clause it is written that Rabbi Elazar validates all of them except bills of divorce.

And we answer:

There are two tannaim, and [they differ] according to Rabbi Elazar.

There is a dispute among the tannaim concerning Rabbi Elazar’s view: whether he decrees the form because of the essential part, or not.

Rabbi Shabtai said in the name of Hezekiah—

the reason that one must leave the place for the man’s and the woman’s names unwritten is

because of quarrel. And

the Mishna is according to the method of

Rabbi Meir, for he says: the signatures of the witnesses effect [the divorce],

and by Torah law it is not necessary that the writing of the bill of divorce be for its sake—

And as a matter of strict law, he could even write the essential part as well.

According to the fundamental law, the scribe could also write the man’s name and the woman’s name. But

sometimes she might hear the scribe writing,

for we are concerned that perhaps the woman will hear that the scribe is writing a bill of divorce in her husband’s name,

and she will think: “He instructed him!”

And she will think that her husband instructed him to write it.

And she would have a quarrel with him.

And this would cause a quarrel between her and him—

Therefore one must leave the man’s name and the woman’s name unwritten. Likewise, one must leave the date of the bill of divorce unwritten, so that it will not be an antedated bill of divorce. But he may write, “Behold, you are permitted to every person,” without the husband’s instruction, since this cannot cause a quarrel.

Rav Hisda said

in the name of

Avimi—

the reason that the scribe must leave the essential part unwritten is

because of the enactment for abandoned wives.

Some say,

there are those who say that this is according to

Rabbi Meir, and some say,

and there are those who say that this is according to

Rabbi Elazar.

Some say: [it is according to] Rabbi Meir, for he says that the signatures of the witnesses effect [the divorce]—

and as a matter of strict law, he could even write the essential part as well.

According to the fundamental law, the scribe could also write the essential part without the husband’s instruction.

But sometimes he might have a quarrel with her,

rather, we are concerned that he might have a quarrel with her,

and he will become angry with her and throw it to her,

in his anger he will throw the bill of divorce to her,

and he will leave her abandoned and keep her [as such].

And through this she will remain divorced without her husband. But since it is necessary to write the man’s and the woman’s names, we assume that by the time the scribe writes them, he will calm down from his anger and reconcile with her.

Some say: [it is according to] Rabbi Elazar, for he says that the witnesses of delivery effect [the divorce]—

and as a matter of strict law, he should not even write the form.

According to the fundamental law, it would be proper that the scribe should not even prepare the form, since we decree concerning the form because of the essential part. Rather,

sometimes he wants to go overseas

sometimes the husband is hurrying to go overseas,

and he does not find a scribe

and he will not find a scribe to write a bill of divorce for him,

and he abandons her

and leaves her without divorcing her,

and goes

and goes overseas,

and leaves her abandoned and keeps her [as such],

and she will remain an abandoned married woman. Therefore they permitted the scribe to prepare a bill of divorce, and he will need to add only the man’s and the woman’s names and the date:

We learned in the Mishna that the scribe must also leave

the place for the date [unwritten]:

It is stated categorically,

the tanna taught in a decisive and absolute manner,

and taught “

one who writes forms of bills of divorce,”

it makes no difference,

without distinguishing whether he divorced her

from marriage,

after he married her,

and it makes no difference

or whether he divorced her

from betrothal,

after he betrothed her, before he married her—

And the Gemara asks:

Granted,

if he divorced her

from marriage,

it is understandable why the scribe must leave the place for the date vacant in the bill of divorce—

according to the one who says

that the reason they enacted a date in bills of divorce is

because

perhaps his wife, who is

his sister’s daughter,

will commit adultery while married to him, and he will have mercy on her so that she will not receive the punishment of strangulation in court, and he will write her a bill of divorce without a date. And when they testify against her in court that she committed adultery, she will produce her bill of divorce and say, “I was divorced at the time of the adultery

.” there is [a reason],

therefore the scribe must leave the place for the date vacant, so that he cannot shield her with an antedated bill of divorce, claiming that she committed adultery after the divorce.

And

according to the one who says

that the reason they enacted a date in bills of divorce is

because of produce.

For the husband eats the produce of the woman’s melog property only until the divorce. And so that the woman can collect from purchasers who bought produce from the husband after he divorced her—for the produce that the husband sold to the purchasers was unlawfully [sold]—if she produces a bill of divorce without a date, the purchasers will say that she was divorced only now, and that they acquired the produce lawfully, before the divorce, from the husband. Therefore they enacted that he should write a date in the bill of divorce, so that she can collect the produce from the purchasers.

there is [a reason],

therefore a bill of divorce with an earlier date is also invalid, for we are concerned that perhaps he will write in the bill of divorce that he divorced her before the time at which he actually divorced her, and she will collect the produce from the purchasers unlawfully. Therefore the scribe must leave the date of the bill of divorce vacant.

But,

in the case where he divorced her

from betrothal

from the time that he betrothed her—

Granted, according to the one who says

that they enacted a date in bills of divorce

because

perhaps he will shield

his sister’s daughter, there is [a reason].

Therefore, even when he divorced her from betrothal, it is necessary to write a date in the bill of divorce, so that he cannot shield her.

But according to the one who says

that the reason for the enactment of a date in bills of divorce is

because of produce,

and an antedated bill of divorce is invalid so that she cannot unlawfully collect the produce of the melog property from the purchasers—

Does a betrothed woman have

the law of

produce!?

For with a betrothed woman, the husband has no right to eat from the produce of her melog property, and the reason for the enactment of a date is not applicable, and there is no need at all to write a date in the bill of divorce.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Amram said: I heard this matter from Ulla—

who said

that the reason they required leaving the place for the date vacant in the case of a betrothed woman is

because of an enactment for the child—

And I do not know what it is.

I did not know how to explain what “an enactment for the child” is in the case of a betrothed woman.

Once I heard

once I heard

that which was taught

what is written in the beraita—

One who says

to witnesses

“Write a bill of divorce for my betrothed,

but I do not wish to divorce her now; rather,

when I marry her,

after I marry her,

“I will divorce her,” it is not a bill of divorce—

And Ulla said: What is the reason

this bill of divorce is invalid for divorcing with it? Because of

a decree, lest they say: “Her bill of divorce preceded her son!”

For there is concern that perhaps when he marries her, she will conceive, and when he divorces her they will see that the date of the bill of divorce is from the time of the betrothal, and they will say that he already divorced her from the time of the betrothal, and that her son was born from an adulterous intercourse, without marriage and betrothal.

So too,

in our Mishna as well, it is necessary to leave the place for the date vacant even in the case of a betrothed woman,

a decree lest

the scribe write the date of the betrothal, while he will not divorce her until after the marriage, and

they will say: “Her bill of divorce preceded her son!”

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Shila, Rabbi Hamnuna the Elder said in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava, who said in the name of Rav—

The halakha is according to Rabbi Elazar

in the latter clause of the Mishna, which invalidates even the form of the bill of divorce, as a decree because of the essential part.

Rav called Rabbi Elazar: “The fortunate one of the sages!”

Rav called Rabbi Elazar the most fortunate among the sages, for the halakha is according to him.

The Gemara asks:

And even with regard to other documents as well!?

Does Rav also rule according to Rabbi Elazar with regard to other documents, that he validates [their forms] in the case of other documents?

But Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava—

this attestation of the judges,

an attestation by which the judges validate the signatures of the witnesses, that these are truly their signatures,

that was written before

it was written before

the witnesses testified

that the witnesses testified before the court

concerning their signatures,

that this is their signature,

is invalid

the attestation is invalid because the matter appears to be false. And even though the judges signed only after the witnesses testified before them that this was their signature, nevertheless the writing of the attestation itself appears to be false, for they wrote that the witnesses testified before them concerning the signatures before the witnesses had actually testified.

It follows

that since the validation

appears to be false,

appears to be false, it is invalid—

so too,

if he prepares the document before the divorce, this

appears to be false,

appears to be false!?

The Gemara answers:

It is not so!

The halakha does not follow Rav Pappi’s ruling—

as is demonstrated

by the

by the words of

Rav Nahman,

and therefore Rav ruled according to Rabbi Elazar—

for Rav Nahman said: Rabbi Meir used to say,

one who wishes to divorce his wife,

even

if the husband

found

the bill of divorce

in a refuse heap,

and the man’s and the woman’s names were properly written in it, if

they signed it

with witnesses for its sake,

and gave it to her, it is valid.

Since Rabbi Meir’s view is that the signatures of the witnesses effect [the divorce], and the essential part of the bill of divorce is the signature, it is not necessary that the writing be for its sake.

And it is demonstrated that we are not concerned that it will appear to be false, for the bill of divorce was not written at all for the woman, and nevertheless he can divorce her with it.

And even the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that a bill of divorce found in a refuse heap is invalid,

do not disagree with Rabbi Meir except with regard to bills of divorce, where we require writing for its sake,

they disagree with Rabbi Meir only concerning a bill of divorce, since they hold that there is a requirement of writing for its sake.

But with regard to other documents,

where there is no requirement of writing for its sake,

no!

Rather, the borrower may use a document that he found in a refuse heap in order to borrow money, and we are not concerned that it will appear to be false.

And we find another proof that with regard to other documents we are not concerned that it will appear to be false—

For Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—

A document with which he borrowed

on the day of the signature, eve

if

n if

he repaid it

on the day of the signature,

he may not borrow again

with

the

same

same document a second time, even on the same day as the first loan,

for its lien has already been forgiven.

For the witnesses did not sign for the second loan, and it is merely an oral loan, and he cannot collect from purchasers.

The Gemara infers—

the reason is that its lien has been forgiven,

therefore it is impossible to use this document again.

But

if the document had also been signed for this loan, even though the document was written before the act of the loan, it would not be invalid, and

we are not concerned because of [its] appearing to be false.

And we are not concerned that it appear to be false; therefore, even in the case of the attestation of the judges, we do not invalidate the attestation because it appears to be false.