This week’s learning is sponsored by Judy and Zev Berman in honor of Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin on the occasion of her celebration of a significant birthday. “We take pride in having given her a shas on the occasion of her birthday over 3 decades ago and see how far Michelle and her family have taken the learning of Torah shebe’al pe. May she celebrate many more years of learning and avoda to klal Yisrael ad meah v’esrim.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Semé Dewees-Cooper in loving memory of Mark’s father Arvie Cooper, Arieh Leb ben Meyer Baruch on his 5th yahrzeit.
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of LI in loving memory of Yakira Leeba bat Avraham Yosef Yehuda b’Sara Gita. “A beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. Our hearts are with you and your family at this difficult time. תהא נשמתה הטהורה צרורה בצרור החיים”
The Mishna brings three opinions regarding whether a get or other documents can be prepared in advance and if so, which parts. Does the first tanna’s opinion reflect Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Elazar’s opinion? Shmuel explains that the first opinion in the Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. Why was it necessary for Shmuel to specify regarding three Mishnayot (on Gittin 21b, 22b and here) that they all follow Rabbi Elazar’s opinion? Why couldn’t we derive one from the other? According to Rabbi Yonatan, the takana mentioned in the Mishna is to allow the scribes to write the form part of the get to ease the work of the scribes, and correspond to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion who requires the get be written li’shma. Rabbi Shabtai in the name of Chizkia holds that the takana is that scribes should not fill in all the details of the get in advance to prevent disputes between spouses, as a woman might hear a scribe reading out her and her husband’s names and think that her husband is planning to divorce her. This understanding would mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Meir’s position who does not require that the get be written li’shma. According to Rav Chisda the takana is to prevent agunot. This can be explained in two ways – both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Meir, the takana would be to not allow all the details to be filled in advance to prevent the husband from quickly divorcing his wife, leaving her stranded. For Rabbi Elazar, the takana was to allow the forms to be written so as not to have a situation where the husband is traveling and since it will take too much time to write the get from scratch, he will leave his wife without divorcing her, thus making her an aguna, bound because of her marriage. The date needs to be left blank as well. Since no distinction is made between divorce from betrothal or divorce from marriage, an explanation is brought of why a date is important even in divorce from engagement. Rav Amram explains that if he didn’t divorce her right away and they first consummated the marriage and she got pregnant, if the date was written earlier, people would say that the child was born out of wedlock. Rabbi Zeira passed down in the name of Rav that we rule like Rabbi Elazar who holds that even the form part couldn’t be written in advance. Does he hold like Rabbi Elazar regarding other documents that they can be written in advance? After suggesting from another similar ruling that the halakha is not like Rabbi Elazar in this regard, they reject the comparison and conclude that the ruling is like Rabbi Elazar.
