## Gittin Daf 26a

###### Gittin 26a:1
[Gittin 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:1)

לֹא רָצָה הָאָב – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 26a:2
[Gittin 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֵּין לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; לָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים – אִית לְהוּ בְּרֵירָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 26a:3
[Gittin 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:3)

וְהָתָם – כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁמָּא יִבָּקַע הַנּוֹד, וְנִמְצָא זֶה שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעַ? אָמַר לָהֶם: לִכְשֶׁיִּבָּקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 26a:4
[Gittin 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִּיטִּין, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ, וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה, וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Gittin 26a:5
[Gittin 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:5)

שְׁטָרֵי מִלְוָה – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַמִּלְוָה, מְקוֹם הַלֹּוֶה, מְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת, מְקוֹם הַזְּמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 26a:6
[Gittin 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:6)

שְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַלּוֹקֵחַ, וּמְקוֹם הַמּוֹכֵר, מָקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת, מְקוֹם הַשָּׂדֶה, וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן; מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 26a:7
[Gittin 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:7)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל בְּכוּלָּן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 26a:8
[Gittin 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אַף מְקוֹם ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 26a:9
[Gittin 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:9)

וּצְרִיכָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Gittin 26a:10
[Gittin 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:10)

דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵין כּוֹתְבִין״ וְקָתָנֵי ״כִּתְבוּ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 26a:11
[Gittin 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:11)

אֲבָל סֵיפָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּחוֹתְמָיו״, אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 26a:12
[Gittin 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:12)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהַהִיא, הָהִיא נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; אֲבָל הָא, אֵימָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָוֵי – רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 26a:13
[Gittin 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:13)

מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה: מַאי תַּקָּנָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת סוֹפֵר; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי; וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ טוֹפֶס נָמֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת סוֹפְרִים שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 26a:14
[Gittin 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:14)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל בְּכוּלָּן – גָּזַר טוֹפֶס אַטּוּ תּוֹרֶף, גָּזַר שְׁטָרוֹת אַטּוּ גִּיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 26a:15
[Gittin 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:15)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים – טוֹפֶס אַטּוּ תּוֹרֶף גָּזַר, שְׁטָרוֹת אַטּוּ גִּיטִּין לָא גָּזַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 26a:16
[Gittin 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:16)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״: וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב ״לָהּ״ – אַתּוֹרֶף הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 26a:17
[Gittin 26a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/26a:17)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.