(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 26

GITIN 26 - dedicated by Larry and Marsha Wachsman l'Iluy Nishmas their aunt, the late Mrs. Rachel Potack (bas Rav Moshe) Z"L -- a true "Eshes Chayil" and "Ba'alas Midos" -- who passed away b'Seivah Tovah in Yerushalayim on 2 Kislev 5761.



(a) If a busy Sofer writes standard documents in advance, the three items that the Tana Kama of our Mishnah requires him to omit and to leave blank on all document - are the names of the two parties and the date.

(b) When writing documents of debt, he must also leave a blank space for the amount, and when writing a document of sale - he must leave in addition, a space for the article that is being sold (e.g. the field).

(c) With regard to the latter two, it is obvious that he is obligated to leave a blank space for the date, because otherwise, the Sh'tar will be pre-dated. The reason that he is not permitted to fill in the other details, if he anticipates that the parties soon come to him for a Sh'tar is - because Chazal decreed other documents because of Gitin.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah is very strict. He invalidates all the documents in the Mishnah, even if the Sofer did leave the blank spaces required by the Tana Kama. Rebbi Elazar permits them all except for Gitin, where the Torah writes "Lah" 'Lish'mah' (though this will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) According to Shmuel - the Sofer is obligated to leave blank the main wording of the Get 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam'.

(b) The author of our Mishnah - is Rebbi Elazar, who requires Kesivah Lishmah.

(c) This is the third Mishnah that Shmuel has established like Rebbi Elazar: 1. 'Ein Kosvin bi'Mechubar le'Karka. Kasvo bi'Mechubar ... '; 2. 'ha'Kol Kesheirin Lichtov'; 3. 'ha'Kosev Tofsei Gitin'. Had he established ...

1. ... only the first Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar, we might have thought that the author of the second Mishnah is Rebbi Meir - because the Tana writes there 'she'Ein Kiyum ha'Get Ela be'Chosamav' (and it is Rebbi Meir who requires Chasimah Lish'mah'), whereas in the Reisha, the Tana writes 'Ein Kosvin ... '.
2. ... the second Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar, we might have thought that the author of the third Mishnah is nevertheless Rebbi Meir - because, seeing that the author of the Seifa Rebbi Elazar, it is more probable that the author of the Reisha is Rebbi Meir.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah writes 'Mipnei ha'Takanah', he means - that Rebbi Elazar permits writing the Tofeis of a Get (and does decree on account of the Toref) - for the benefit of the Sofer, who might be hard-pressed for time when the Get needs to be written.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of Takanas Sofrin at all, forbidding the writing of both the Toref and the Tofeis of all Sh'taros. Rebbi Elazar forbids the Tofeis of Gitin (as well as the Toref of other Sh'taros) - because he too, agrees that Chazal decreed the Tofeis of Gitin (and the Toref of Sh'taros) on account of the Toref of Gitin, but not the Tofeis of other Sh'taros because of the Toref of Gitin, because that would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.

(c) What is wrong with the D'rashah 'she'Ne'emar "ve'Kasav Lah" 'li'Sh'mah' that Rebbi Elazar brings to forbid writing the Tofeis of a Get is - the fact that the Pasuk is talking about the Toref, whereas he is referring to the Tofeis.

(d) To answer this Kashya - we amend the wording of our Mishnah from 'she'Ne'emar "ve'Kasav Lah" 'li'Sh'mah' to 'Mishum she'Ne'emar "ve'Kasav Lah" 'li'Sh'mah' ('Mishum' meaning on account of'. In other words, they decreed the Tofeis, on accound of the Pasuk "ve'Kasav Lah", which requires the Toref to e written Lish'mah).



4) We reconcile Rebbi Elazar in the Reisha of our Mishnah, who permits a Sofer to write Tofsei Gitin, with Rebbi Elazar in the Seifa who prohibits him from doing so - by turning the two opinions into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi Elazar really said.


(a) Rebbi Shabsi Amar Chizkiyah establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir. He explains 'Mishum Takanah' to mean - that, although in reality, the Tana ought to have permitted writing even the Toref, (since Rebbi Meir Darshens "ve'Kasav Lah" on the Chasimah and not on the Kesivah), Chazal nevertheless forbade writing the Toref in advance, in case a woman walking past the Sofer, overhears him writing (and reading aloud) a Get which happens to be written in the name of her husband and herself, and thinking that her husband instructed him to write it, this will lead to strife in their home.

(b) Rav Chisda Amar Avimi explains 'Mishum Takanah' to mean because of Takanas Agunos, either according to Rebbi Meir (like Rebbi Shabsi) or according to Rebbi Elazar (like Shmuel). According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir means - that if it were possible to write a Get in advance, there is a fear that a man may quarrel with his wife and become angry, and in his anger, he will run to the Sofer and procure a ready-made Get and hand it to her (see Hagahos Avraham Te'omim). But now that we forbade the Sofer to prepare the Toref of a Get in advance, there is a chance that, by the time the Sofer writes the Get, the husband's anger will have abated.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar means - that we are afraid that should we not permit the Sofer to write even the Tofeis (which we really ought to decree on account of the Toref), then it may happen that the husband needs to travel overseas, and wishes to hand his wife a Get to spare her from becoming an Agunah, should he not return. We are therefore afraid that, if he cannot find even a Tofeis ha'Get that is already written, he will go without handing her the Get, and that his fears will ultimately materialize.
(a) Our Tana lists the date among the blank spaces that the Sofer must leave on the Get - making no distinction between the Get of a married woman and of one who is betrothed.

(b) The problem with this is - that this is fine according to those who require the date on a Get because of the Takanah of 'ben Achoso' (the fear that he will give the niece to whom he is married an undated Get in the event that she commits adultery). But according to those who give the reason as being to ascertain from when the woman may claim the Peiros that her husband ate unlawfully, the Get of an Arusah should not require dating, seeing as the husband of an Arusah is not entitled to Peiros in the first place?

(c) A man is authorized to eat the Peiros of his wife's property - from the moment he marries her, and becomes obligated to redeem her in the event of her capture.

(a) Rav Amram learned from Ula that the reason for inserting the date in the Get of an Arusah is because of Takanah V'lad, but he did not know what he meant. What he meant was - the fear that, should the Sofer insert the date of writing, the husband may subsequently divorce his wife only later after the marriage, but looking at the date on the Get, people will think that it was given before the birth of the child, causing the child to become stigmatized.

(b) Ula made this statement - in connection with a man who asked someone to write him a Get for the woman to whom he was betrothed, but which he would only give to her after they were married.

(a) Rebbi Zeira quoting ... Rav rules like Rebbi Elazar (whom Rav refers to as 'Tuvina de'Chakimi' [the most praiseworthy of the Chachamim]) - in our Mishnah, who invalidates the Tofeis of a Get that is written in advance, on account of the Toref.

(b) Rav Papi in the name of Rava - invalidated a Sh'tar that was certified by Beis-Din in advance of the witnesses testimony, because it appears false.

(c) Rav's ruling like Rebbi Elazar also incorporates Rebbi Elazar's opinion regarding other Sh'taros besides Gitin, where he validates Tofsin that are written in advance.

(d) Rav Papi quoting Rava clashes with Rav - inasmuch as, according to the former, writing Tofsin of other Gitin in advance should also be Pasul, because it appears false.

(a) Rav Nachman quoting Rebbi Meir validates a Get that was found in a trash-heap - provides the finder has it signed.

(b) Rebbi Meir's statement substantiates Rav's ruling like Rebbi Elazar with regard to other Sh'taros, and proves Rav Papi quoting Rava wrong - because it ignores the fact that using such a Sh'tar appears false (since it was written for somebody else).

(c) We bring a proof from Rebbi Meir, despite the fact that the Rabbanan disagree with him, because they only disagree with regard to Gitin, which require Kesivah li'Shman, but not with regard to other Sh'taros.

(d) We substantiate this with a statement by Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who permits re-using a Sh'tar after the loan has already paid re-paid, a clear proof that, regarding Sh'taros other than Gitin, we are not concerned about the fact that a document appears false.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,