## Gittin Daf 26b

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

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

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


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

רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַי אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מִשּׁוּם קְטָטָה; וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ תּוֹרֶף נָמֵי לִכְתּוֹב; וְזִמְנִין דְּשָׁמְעָה לֵיהּ לְסוֹפֵר דְּקָא כָתֵיב, וְסָבְרָה אִיהוּ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וְהָוֵה לַהּ קְטָטָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת עֲגוּנוֹת; אָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

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


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

אָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ תּוֹרֶף נָמֵי לִכְתּוֹב; וְזִמְנִין דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ קְטָטָה בַּהֲדַהּ, וְרָתַח עֲלַהּ וְזָרֵיק לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ, וּמְעַגֵּן וּמוֹתֵיב לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דְּאָמַר: עֵידֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ טוֹפֶס נָמֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב; וְזִמְנִין דְּבָעֵי לְמֵיזַל לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח סָפְרָא, וְשָׁבֵיק לַהּ וְאָזֵיל, וּמְעַגֵּן וּמוֹתֵיב לַהּ.

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


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

וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן: קָפָסֵיק וְתָנֵי; לָא שְׁנָא מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין, וְלָא שְׁנָא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין.

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


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין; בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ – אִיכָּא, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם פֵּירֵי – אִיכָּא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין; בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ – אִיכָּא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם פֵּירֵי, אֲרוּסָה מִי אִית לַהּ פֵּירֵי?!

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


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

אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הָא מִילְּתָא שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּעוּלָּא דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת וָלָד, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי נִיהוּ. כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁמְעִיתַהּ לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לַאֲרוּסָתִי, לִכְשֶׁאֶכְנְסֶנָּה אֲגָרְשֶׁנָּה״, אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: מָה טַעַם? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: גִּיטָּהּ קוֹדֵם לִבְנָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: גִּיטָּהּ קוֹדֵם לִבְנָהּ.

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


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שֵׁילָא, אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא, אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: טוּבְיָנָא דְּחַכִּימֵי.

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


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

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי אַשַּׁרְתָּא דְּדַיָּינֵי, דְּמִיכַּתְבָה מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיסָהֲדֵי סָהֲדִי אַחֲתִימַת יְדַיְיהוּ – פְּסוּלָה; אַלְמָא מִיחְזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא, הָכָא נָמֵי מִיחְזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא!

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


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

וְלֵיתַהּ, מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֲפִילּוּ מְצָאוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה, חֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, דְּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בּוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְלֹוֶה בּוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְחַל שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ. טַעְמָא דְּנִמְחַל שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ, אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם שִׁיקְרָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

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