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

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.

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

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.

וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ תּוֹרֶף נַמִי לִכְתּוֹב, וְזִמְנִין דְשָׁמְעָה לֵיהּ לַסּוֹפֵר דְּקָא כָּתֵיב, וְסָבְרָהּ אִיהוּ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וַהֲוָה לָהּ קְטָטָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

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.

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

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.

אָמְרִי לָהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ תּוֹרֶף נַמִי לִכְתּוֹב, וְזִמְנִין דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ קְטָטָה בַּהֲדָהּ וְרָתַח עֲלָהּ, וְזָרֵיק לֵיהּ נִיהֲלָהּ וּמְעַגֵּן וּמוֹתִיב לָהּ;

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.

אָמְרִי לָהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: עֵידֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ טוֹפֶס נַמִי לָא לִכְתּוֹב, וְזִמְנִין דְּבָעֵי לְמֵיזַל לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח סָפְרָא, וְשָׁבֵיק לָהּ וְאָזֵיל וּמְעַגֵּן וּמוֹתִיב לָהּ.

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.

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

§ 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.

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

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.

אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דַּאֲמַר מִשּׁוּם בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ – אִיכָּא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דַּאֲמַר מִשּׁוּם פֵּירֵי, אֲרוּסָה מִי אִית לָהּ פֵּירֵי?

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.

אֲמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הָא מִילְּתָא שְׁמָעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, דַּאֲמַר: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת וָלָד, וְלָא יָדַעֲנָא מַאי נִיהוּ. כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמְעִיתָא לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לַאֲרוּסָתִי, לִכְשֶׁאֶכְנְסֶנָּהּ אֲגָרְשֶׁנָּהּ״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: מַה טַּעַם? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ גִּיטָּהּ קוֹדֵם לִבְנָהּ – הָכָא נַמִי גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ גִּיטָּהּ קוֹדֵם לִבְנָהּ.

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.

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: טוֹבִינָא דְּחַכִּימֵי.

§ 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.

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת נַמִי? וְהָאֲמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי אַשַּׁרְתָּא דְּדַיָּינֵי דְּמִיכַּתְבָה מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיסַהֲדֵי סָהֲדֵי אַחֲתִימַת יְדַיְיהוּ – פְּסוּלָה, אַלְמָא מֶיחֱזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא. הָכָא נַמִי מֶיחֱזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא!

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.

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

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.

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

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.