Gittin 52

קשיא דר' אלעזר אדר' אלעזר תרי תנאי ואליבא דר"א

Does not R. Eleazar here contradict himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By laying down in the first clause of this Mishnah that the formulas may be written and in the second that they may not. ');">¹</span>

ר' שבתי אמר חזקיה משום קטטה ור"מ היא דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי

— Two Tannaim report R. Eleazar differently.

ובדין הוא דאפי' תורף נמי לכתוב וזמנין דשמעה ליה לסופר דקא כתיב וסברה איהו קאמר ליה והוה לה קטטה בהדיה

R. Shabbathai said in the name of R. Hezekiah: [The words TO PREVENT HARDSHIP] mean 'to prevent quarrelling', [the Mishnah] following R. Meir who said that the signatures of the witnesses make [the Get] effective. and by rights it should be permitted to the scribe to write [beforehand] even the substantive part, but in that case it might happen that a woman might hear a scribe [reading over] what he had written and she might think that her husband had told him to write and so fall out with him. R. Hisda said in the name of Abimi: It is for the relief of deserted wives. Some say [that this interpretation] follows R. Meir, and some say that it follows R. Eleazar. Some say it follows R. Meir who held that the witnesses to the signatures make [the Get] effective, and therefore by rights it is permissible to put in beforehand even the substantive part of the Get, only it may happen sometimes that a husband falls out with his wife and in a passion throws her [the Get] and then makes her remain a deserted wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because since the Get is written but not signed she is neither divorced nor married. ');">²</span>

רב חסדא אמר אבימי משום תקנת עגונות אמרי לה ר"מ ואמרי לה ר"א

Some again say it follows R. Eleazar who held that the witnesses to delivery make [the Get] effective, and therefore by rights even the formula [of the Get] should not be written beforehand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear that it may lead to the writing of the substantive part. ');">³</span>

אמרי לה ר"מ דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי ובדין הוא דאפי' תורף נמי לכתוב וזמנין דהוה ליה קטטה בהדה ורתח עלה וזריק ליה ניהלה ומעגן ומותיב לה

only it may happen sometimes that the man wants to go abroad and does not find a scribe ready and so he leaves her [without giving her the Get] and thus makes her a deserted wife [if he is lost].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because according to Jewish law death cannot be presumed. ');">⁴</span>

אמרי לה ר"א דאמר עידי מסירה כרתי ובדין הוא דאפי' טופס נמי לא לכתוב וזמנין דבעי למיזל למדינת הים ולא אשכח ספרא ושביק לה ואזיל ומעגן ומותיב לה:

AND FOR THE DATE. The Mishnah makes no distinction between [a Get which dissolves] a marriage and [a Get which dissolves] a betrothal. In the case of [a Get which dissolves] a marriage this is a proper [regulation], whether on the view [that the date is required] to prevent a man shielding his sister's daughter or on the view that [it is required] on account of the usufruct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 17a. ');">⁵</span>

ומקום הזמן: קפסיק ותני לא שנא מן הנישואין ולא שנא מן האירוסין

In [a Get which dissolves] a betrothal, however, the regulation certainly is reasonable on the view that the date is required to prevent a man shielding his sister's daughter, but on the view that it is required on account of the usufruct — does the law of usufruct apply to a betrothed woman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are no provisions entitling the bridegroom to the usufruct of his bride's property. ');">⁶</span>

בשלמא מן הנישואין בין למ"ד משום בת אחותו איכא בין למ"ד משום פירי איכא

— R. Amram said: I heard a certain remark from 'Ulla, who said 'it is to safeguard the interest of the child', and I did not know what he meant. [I discovered it, however], when I came across the following statement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 52a. ');">⁷</span>

אלא מן האירוסין בשלמא למ"ד משום בת אחותו איכא אלא למ"ד משום פירי ארוסה מי אית לה פירי

If a man says, 'Write a Get for my fiancee, I will divorce her with it after I marry her,' it is no Get. And commenting on this 'Ulla said: What is the reason? Because people may say that her Get came [before] her child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that she was divorced while still only affianced, and that therefore her child was born out of wedlock. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב עמרם הא מילתא שמעית מיניה דעולא דאמר משום תקנת ולד ולא ידענא מאי ניהו כיון דשמעיתא להא דתניא האומר כתבו גט לארוסתי לכשאכנסנה אגרשנה אינו גט ואמר עולא מה טעם גזירה שמא יאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה ה"נ גזירה שמא יאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה

So here, [the date has to be put in] lest people should say that her Get [came] before her child.

א"ר זירא אמר ר' אבא בר שילא אמר רב המנונא סבא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב הלכה כר"א קרי רב עליה דר"א טובינא דחכימי

R. Zera said in the name of R. Abba b. Shila who said it in the name of R. Hamnuna the Elder who had it from R. Adda b. Ahaba who had it from Rab: The <i>halachah</i> follows the ruling of R. Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even the formula of the Get may not be written beforehand. ');">⁹</span>

ואפי' בשאר שטרות נמי והאמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא האי אשרתא דדייני דמיכתבה מקמי דליסהדי סהדי אחתימת ידייהו פסולה אלמא מיחזי כשיקרא ה"נ מיחזי כשיקרא

Rab designated R. Eleazar 'the happiest of the wise men.' Does then the [<i>halachah</i>] follow him in regard to other documents also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The formulas of which he allows to be written out beforehand. ');">¹⁰</span>

וליתא מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אומר היה ר"מ אפילו מצאו באשפה חתמו ונתנו לה כשר ואפילו רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר"מ אלא בגיטי נשים דבעינן כתיבה לשמה אבל בשאר שטרות לא

Has not R. Papi said in the name of Raba: If an authentication of the <i>Beth din</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certifying that the signatures to such-and-such a document are genuine. ');">¹¹</span>

דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן שטר שלוה בו ופרעו אינו חוזר ולוה בו שכבר נמחל שעבודו טעמא דנמחל שעבודו אבל משום שיקרא לא חיישינן:

is written before the witnesses have testified to their signatures, it is invalid? The reason is that it seems to contain a falsehood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it runs: 'While we sat as a court of three there came before us So-and-so who testified to their signatures etc.' ');">¹²</span> So here, the documents seem to contain a falsehood? — This is no objection, as shown by the statement of R. Nahman, who said: R. Meir used to say that even if a man found [a Get] on a rubbish heap and had it signed and delivered to the wife, it is valid. And even the Rabbis do not differ from R. Meir save in regard to writs of divorce, which have to be written with 'special intention', but not in regard to other documents, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man gives a bond for a loan and repays the loan [on the same day], he may not use the same bond for another loan because the obligation contained in it is already cancelled. The reason is that the obligation contained in it is cancelled, but the fact that it may appear to contain a falsehood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In not being written originally for the loan which is now being contracted. ');">¹³</span> is of no concern.