Study Gittin folio 26B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: If the first clause of the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar, this is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the explicit statement of R' Elazar in the last clause of the Mishnah, where he rules that a scribe may not write the standard part of a bill of
The Talmud returns to discussing the ordinance mentioned in the Mishnah. R' Shabbetai says that Ḥizkiyya says: The ordinance mentioned in the Mishnah was not instituted for the benefit of scribes, allowing them to prepare the standard part of bills of divorce in advance. The ordinance was institute
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, an
The Talmud suggests another understanding of the ordinance mentioned in the Mishnah. 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 Mishnah in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, an
The Talmud clarifies: Some say that it is in accordance with the opinion of R' 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 w