משנה: הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הַאִשָּׁה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן. שְׁטָרֵי מִלְוָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַמַּלְוֶה וּמְקוֹם הַלּוֹוֶה וּמְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן. שְׁטָרֵי מֶקַח וּמֶמְכָּר צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמְקוֹם הַמּוֹכֵר וּמְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת וּמְקוֹם הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל בְּכוּלָּן. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכָתַב לָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ. MISHNAH: If somebody57A scribe. writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time. For bonds, he has to leave space for the lender, the borrower, the sum, and the time. For commercial deeds, he has to leave space for the buyer, the seller, the sum, the field58The descriptions of the boundaries of the parcel., and the time59All predated documents having financial implications are invalid; cf. Gittin 2:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.2.2.3">Chapter 2, Note 16., because of good order60There is a dispute between the Talmudim about the meaning of this clause.. Rebbi Jehudah invalidates all of these. Rebbi Eleazar validates all of them except women’s bills of divorce, for it is said61Cf. Gittin 2:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.2.5.2">Chapter 2, Note 100. The Gittin.26a">Babli, 26a, reports only R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, in the name of Samuel.: “He shall write for her”, in her name.
הלכה: הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס כָּשֵׁר. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס פָּסוּל. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִיטִּין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הַאִשָּׁה וְהַזְּמָן. פָּתַר לָהּ וְתוֹרְפוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם בְּשֶׁכָּתַב תּוֹרְפוֹ בַטּוֹפֶס בְּדָא חֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָה. מִפְּסוּלוֹ אַתְּ לָמֵד הֶכְשֵׁירוֹ. אִילּוּ כָתַב כּוּלּוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָסוּל. וְדִכְװָתָהּ כָּתַב כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ וְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה לִשְׁמָהּ כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁזִּיװֵג. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּן אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַבּוֹ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לְזַוֵּיג אֲפִילוּ זִיװֵג כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא זִיװֵג. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא כָתַב בַּטּוֹפֶס תּוֹרְפוֹ בְּדָא רִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹסֵל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. לְעִנְייָן אַחֵר עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוּדָה. וַתְייָא כַּיי דָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָלָק מְקוֹם שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִּין לְעִנְייָן אֶחָד אֲפִילוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, writing the essential text with the formula is valid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid61Cf. Gittin 2:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.2.5.2">Chapter 2, Note 100. The Gittin.26a">Babli, 26a, reports only R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, in the name of Samuel.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time.62It is assumed by the questioner that the text to be written for that woman only includes the sentence that by the document she is divorced.” He explains it, with the essential text63The Mishnah has to be explained in a restrictive way: Only the spaces mentioned in the Mishnah have to be left blank.. It is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan: Do the Sages declare valid in case he wrote the essential text with the formulaic text? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: From its invalidity you learn its validity. If he wrote everything64Including the divorce sentence. in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names not in her name, would that be valid? Similarly, if he wrote everything not in her name but the husband’s and the wife’s names in her name, it is valid. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Jeremiah: Think of it, if it was paired65If there were two couples in town, in both cases the husband was called X ben Y and the wife Z bat U, would this not require a special characterization such as “X ben Y who dwells in house W”, and the space left blank would not suffice for the characterizations.? He said, so said his teacher Rebbi Ze‘ira to him: Since pairing is infrequent, even if there was pairing it is as if there was no pairing66Even if there were two couples with identical names, if the bill of divorce is written without special characterizations it is valid since one assumes that the bill was intended for the woman who presents it together with her ketubah to collect her due. (The Babli permits only in emergencies to divorce such a couple without due characterization or in the presence of the other couple; 66a.).. Then it is difficult for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even if he did not write the essential text in the formula, Rebbi Jehudah declares invalid67The opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish has no basis in the Mishnah which either does not permit prepared forms or requires only the personal data and the date to be filled in.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Jehudah refers to something else; it follows what Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines68The witnesses have to sign on the second line after the end of the text; not directly after the text in order to show the difference between the text and the witnesses nor two lines apart because then the document could be falsified: a line could be added after the witnesses signed. A document signed by witnesses at a distance of more than one line is invalid in all cases (Gittin 9:7:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.7.2-4">Halakhah 9:8, 50c 1. 10; Babli Baba Batra 162b; Tosephta Giṭṭin 7:11). about one subject69The Venice printer read אחר instead of אחד; this led the commentators into difficulties. (The ms. text has אחר in Bava Batra 10:1:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.10.1.2-10">Baba batra 10:1; this belongs to another editorial team. Cf. Gittin 9:7:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.7.2-4">Halakhah 9:8.) is invalid in any case.
מָהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה. רִבִּי שַׁבָּתַי בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְצוּיוֹת לְהִתְגָּרֵשׁ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא. כָּשֵׁר וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵן. אִין תֵּימַר פָּסוּל וְיֵאוּת. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַלִּיבֶּלָּר. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ חַייָו מְצוּיִין לוֹ. What is “the good order”? Rebbi Sabbatai in the name of Ḥizqiah: Because of the good order of Jewish women, lest they frequently be divorced70The forms must contain blank spaces to introduce an artificial complication forcing the husband to go to a scribe to get a bill of divorce.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is valid, and you say so? If it were invalid, then [the explanation] would be acceptable71The answer given fits the position of R. Jehudah who prohibits the preparation of forms.. Rebbi Abun said, for the good order of the scribe, that his livelihood be guaranteed72All legal formalities contain an element of protection for lawyers, to make sure their services are needed. This is the only explanation given in the Gittin.26a">Babli, 26a..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוּדָה בַּגִּיטִּין וּכְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּשְּׁטָרוֹת. נֹאמַר הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בַּגִּיטִּין וּכְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּשְּׁטָרוֹת. נֹאמַר הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֶלָּא בְּגִין דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל תְּרַוַּייהוּ אָֽמְרִין. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְלֹא תִּיסְבַּר מֵימַר אַף הָכָא כֵן. צָרַךְ מֵימַר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּגִּיטִּין וּכְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּשְּׁטָרוֹת. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar73Both in Gittin 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.3.2.1">Mishnah 3:2 and in 9:4 the name is R. Eleazar, but in Gittin 9:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.9.3.1">Mishnah 9:4 in the Babli (editio princeps and Munich ms.) as well as in the Cambridge ms. of the Mishnah the reading is Eliezer. In Tosephta 2:10, two sources read Eliezer, one Eleazar. Since “Eleazar” is the reading of all Medieval commentators of the Babli, it is accepted here. in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar74Since he agrees with R. Jehudah about bills of divorce.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar for bills of divorce and Rebbi Jehudah in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah? But because Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rebbi Eleazar75That the witnesses to the delivery of the bill effectuate the divorce. The Gittin.86b">Babli agrees, 86b.; in order not to let you think that here it is the same, it was necessary to state that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar in commercial documents76The reason for the rejection of divorce documents based on prepared forms is that of R. Jehudah, i. e., that both writing and signing are part of the biblical requirement of “writing for her”. The statement of R. Abba is rejected..