תלמוד על גיטין 3:1

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me”, but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates forms⁵In Mishnah 3:2, the anonymous majority permit the routine production of forms of bills of divorce where everything is written in advance and only the names of husband and wife, the date, and the statement of divorce are then inserted for the particular couple involved in the divorce; but R. Jehudah holds that the requirement that “he write for her” (Deut. 24:1) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last.. Following Rebbi Jehudah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel⁶In Halakhah 3:2, practice is declared as following R. Jehudah.. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce⁷Since the agent is to be interviewed about the writing of the bill, it is obvious that he could not answer if the bill was a form in which only the names of husband and wife and the time were inserted. Even the anonymous majority of Mishnah 3:2 must agree that forms are possible only in the Land. and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: It is permitted that he enter and leave⁸In all matters of supervision, it is possible for the supervisor to leave the place occasionally as long as he can return at any moment and the person to be supervised, in this case the scribe, does not know in advance when the supervisor will return. The same baraita is accepted in the Babli, 6a..

There, we have stated⁶⁸Mishnah Giṭṭin 3:8: “If somebody puts aside produce to serve for heave or tithes, or coins to serve for Second Tithe, he refers to them {to redeem produce or to put produce in order with the intention that all sanctity should devolve on produce and coins set aside} based on the prior knowledge that they still exist. If they are lost, he worries for 24 hours, the words of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua‘.)” In both the Babli (Giṭṭin 31a/b) and the Yerushalmi (Giṭṭin 3:8), there is a discussion whether the tithing is questionable for the 24 hours preceding the discovery of the loss or whether the tithing is not questionable only for the first 24 hours after produce or coins were set aside. In any case, there is no opposition noted by either R. Yose or R. Simeon. Since transporting wine from Samaria presumably takes less than 24 hours, such opposition would have been expected.: “If somebody puts aside produce … to serve for Second Tithe.” Does⁶⁹This and the next sentence are copied from Giṭṭin. Therefore, our baraita is referred to as “there”, and the Mishnah as “here.” that Mishnah disagree with Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Zeïra said, there they become spoiled retroactively, but here they become spoiled only starting from the moment of loss⁷⁰Even if the heave was lost, since it was legal heave at the time it saves the produce from ever being ṭevel again..

HALAKHAH: “Everybody is acceptable to write the bill of divorce,” etc. Rav Huna said, only if a sane person watches over them¹¹⁹If an incompetent person (insane, deaf-and-dumb, or minor) writes the text, they must be directed by a person who knows for what they write. The same statement is in the Babli, 22b/23a.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked¹²⁰The translation follows the Geniza text and Sefer ha‘Iṭṭur (27b).: But is it not written: “He shall write for her,” in her name⁵In Mishnah 3:2, the anonymous majority permit the routine production of forms of bills of divorce where everything is written in advance and only the names of husband and wife, the date, and the statement of divorce are then inserted for the particular couple involved in the divorce; but R. Jehudah holds that the requirement that “he write for her” (Deut. 24:1) can only be fulfilled if the bill was written specifically for that wife from the first letter to the last.? Samuel said, it is necessary that one reserve the essential text for him¹²¹The essential text must be written by a responsible person under the husband’s direction. The Babli agrees, 23a.. This follows what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, writing the essential text with the formula is invalid¹⁰⁰This refers to Mishnah 3:2, in which permission is given to scribes to prepare the formulaic text of divorce documents, so that only the names of husband and wife and the date have to be inserted, without violating the commandment that the document be written specifically for the woman concerned. It is not mentioned in the Mishnah whether the text which turns the document into one of divorce, “this is your bill of divorce and you are permitted to every man” is part of the formulaic text or has to be written with that particular woman in mind. R. Joḥanan permits this sentence to be written as a formula, R. Simeon ben Laqish prohibits. (In the Babli, 21b, the attributions are switched, probably because the Babli insists that practice follow R. Joḥanan.) In the interpretation of the Babli, the divorce formula may be prepared in advance for R. Eleazar, for whom only the witnesses to the delivery of the text are important, but not for R. Meïr, for whom the witnesses signing the document are those who validate the divorce. It is impossible to know whether the Yerushalmi would agree to this interpretation..