Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman. Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it.Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it.Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.
With regard to a scribe who writes the standard part [tofes] of bills of divorce in advance, so that when one requests a bill of divorce, he will need to add only the details unique to this case, he must leave empty the place in the bill of divorce for the name of the man, and the place for the name of the woman, and the place for the date. If a scribe writes the standard part of loan documents, he must leave empty the place of the name of the lender, the place of the name of the borrower, the place of the amount of the money being loaned, and the place of the date. If the scribe writes the standard part of documents of sale of land, he must leave empty the place for the name of the purchaser, and the place for the name of the seller, the place for the amount of the money for which the land is being purchased, the place for the description of the field that is being purchased, and the place of the date when the sale occurs. This is necessary due to the ordinance, as the Gemara will explain. Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of these documents if their standard parts were written in advance. Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce, as it is stated in the Torah: “And he writes for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), indicating that he must write the bill of divorce for her sake. Therefore, one may not write even the standard part of the bill of divorce in advance, as that would not qualify as writing the bill of divorce for her sake.
With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid. In the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman, and when he had left the husband was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive, and there is no concern that in the meantime he has died, thereby canceling the bill of divorce. Similarly, with regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. Similarly, in the case of one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas, the priests may offer it on the altar based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive.
Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages as testimony from previous generations, and they upheld his statements: He spoke concerning the residents of a town that was surrounded by a camp of besiegers [karkom]; and concerning the travelers in a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged in a capital case; that they are all presumed to be alive.However, concerning the residents of a town that was conquered by a camp of besiegers; and the travelers on a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed after receiving his verdict; in these cases one applies to them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead. How so? An Israelite woman married to a priest in one of these situations or a daughter of a priest married to an Israelite in one of these situations may not partake of teruma. The first woman may not do so because she may partake of teruma only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of teruma only if he has died.
With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, where his only responsibility is to transmit the bill of divorce to the wife, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her that I left with her as a deposit, then he may not send it in the possession of another agent. This is because it is assumed that it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another person whom he did not appoint as his agent.
With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court.
The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person, with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the teruma and tithes separated from the produce, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money with the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that perhaps the priest or the Levite died in the interim, or that the poor person became rich and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man’s tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate teruma and tithes. If in fact they died, then he must obtain permission from the heirs in order to continue the arrangement. However, if he lent money to the deceased, and he stipulated in the presence of the court that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.
With regard to one who sets aside produce with the understanding that he will separate terumot and tithes with it, so that when he has untithed produce he can render it fit by declaring that the teruma and tithes that must be separated will be from the produce that he had set aside for this purpose, or one who sets aside money with the understanding that he will separate and to redeem second tithe with it, then he may later separate the teruma or tithe with them, based on the presumption that the produce or the money are extant. He need not be concerned that perhaps the produce or money was lost in the meantime. If he discovers that they were lost, then he must be concerned that the produce or money that he set aside was lost, from the time until the same time, as will be explained in the Gemara, and he must separate teruma and tithes from the produce a second time; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar.Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks the wine that is set aside to be used for separating terumot and tithes for other wine to see if it has turned to vinegar, which would render it unfit for this purpose, at three times during the year: When the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, and when the blossoms fall and the grape buds emerge and appear as small clusters, and at the time when water enters and fills the unripe grape. Since there is a change in the weather at these times, one should check to ensure that the wine has not turned to vinegar.
כָּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה, פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמַע קוֹל סוֹפְרִים מַקְרִין, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת פְּלוֹנִית מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְאָמַר, זֶה שְּׁמִי וְזֶה שֵּׁם אִשְׁתִּי, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ, מְצָאוֹ בֶן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ, שְׁמִי כִשְׁמֶךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְשֵׁם אִשְׁתֶּךָ, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת, כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, אָמַר לַלַּבְלָר, כְּתֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ, פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ:
Any bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of a specific woman is invalid. How so? In a case of a man who was passing through the marketplace and heard the sound of scribes who write bills of divorce dictating the text to their students: The man so-and-so divorces so-and-so from the place of such and such; and the man said: This is my name and that is the name of my wife, and he wishes to use this bill for his divorce, this bill is unfit for him to divorce his wife with it, as it was not written for the sake of any woman. Moreover, if one wrote a bill of divorce with which to divorce his wife but later reconsidered, and a resident of his town found him and said to him: My name is the same as your name, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce and I will use it; the bill of divorce is unfit for the second man to divorce his wife with it. Moreover, if one had two wives and their names were identical, and he wrote a bill of divorce to divorce the older one and then reconsidered, he may not divorce the younger one with it. Moreover, if he said to the scribe: Write a bill of divorce for whichever one of them that I will want and I will divorce her with it, this bill of divorce is unfit for him to divorce either wife with it.
הַכּוֹתֵב טָפְסֵי גִטִּין, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן. שְׁטָרֵי מִלְוֶה, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַמַּלְוֶה, מְקוֹם הַלֹּוֶה, מְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן. שְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמְקוֹם הַמּוֹכֵר וּמְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת וּמְקוֹם הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן, מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל בְּכֻלָּן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכֻלָּן, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְכָתַב לָהּ, לִשְׁמָהּ:
With regard to a scribe who writes the standard part [tofes] of bills of divorce in advance, so that when one requests a bill of divorce, he will need to add only the details unique to this case, he must leave empty the place in the bill of divorce for the name of the man, and the place for the name of the woman, and the place for the date. If a scribe writes the standard part of loan documents, he must leave empty the place of the name of the lender, the place of the name of the borrower, the place of the amount of the money being loaned, and the place of the date. If the scribe writes the standard part of documents of sale of land, he must leave empty the place for the name of the purchaser, and the place for the name of the seller, the place for the amount of the money for which the land is being purchased, the place for the description of the field that is being purchased, and the place of the date when the sale occurs. This is necessary due to the ordinance, as the Gemara will explain. Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of these documents if their standard parts were written in advance. Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce, as it is stated in the Torah: “And he writes for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), indicating that he must write the bill of divorce for her sake. Therefore, one may not write even the standard part of the bill of divorce in advance, as that would not qualify as writing the bill of divorce for her sake.
הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ, מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר, כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם לָאו, פָּסוּל. מְצָאוֹ בַחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִדְלֻסְקְמָא, אִם מַכִּירוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְהִנִּיחוֹ זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה, נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַנְּשׂוּאָה לְכֹהֵן וְהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה בְחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם:
With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid. In the case of an agent who brings a bill of divorce to a woman, and when he had left the husband was elderly or sick, the agent gives her the bill of divorce based on the presumption that the husband is still alive, and there is no concern that in the meantime he has died, thereby canceling the bill of divorce. Similarly, with regard to an Israelite woman who is married to a priest and may therefore partake of teruma, and her husband went to a country overseas, she may continue to partake of teruma based on the presumption that her husband is still alive. Similarly, in the case of one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas, the priests may offer it on the altar based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פַּרְטָא לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְקִיְּמוּ אֶת דְּבָרָיו. עַל עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפָהּ כַּרְקוֹם, וְעַל הַסְּפִינָה הַמִּטָּרֶפֶת בַּיָּם, וְעַל הַיּוֹצֵא לִדּוֹן, שֶׁהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת קַיָּמִין. אֲבָל עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ כַּרְקוֹם, וּסְפִינָה שֶׁאָבְדָה בַיָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵהָרֵג, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחֻמְרֵי מֵתִים, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא תֹאכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה:
Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages as testimony from previous generations, and they upheld his statements: He spoke concerning the residents of a town that was surrounded by a camp of besiegers [karkom]; and concerning the travelers in a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged in a capital case; that they are all presumed to be alive. However, concerning the residents of a town that was conquered by a camp of besiegers; and the travelers on a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed after receiving his verdict; in these cases one applies to them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead. How so? An Israelite woman married to a priest in one of these situations or a daughter of a priest married to an Israelite in one of these situations may not partake of teruma. The first woman may not do so because she may partake of teruma only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of teruma only if he has died.
הַמֵּבִיא גֵט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחָלָה, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְיַד אַחֵר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ טֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי, לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְיַד אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִקְדוֹנוֹ בְיַד אַחֵר:
With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, where his only responsibility is to transmit the bill of divorce to the wife, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her that I left with her as a deposit, then he may not send it in the possession of another agent. This is because it is assumed that it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another person whom he did not appoint as his agent.
הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְחָלָה, עוֹשֶׂה בֵית דִּין וּמְשַׁלְּחוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶם, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם. וְאֵין שָׁלִיחַ אַחֲרוֹן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר, שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אָנִי:
With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court.
הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת הַלֵּוִי וְאֶת הֶעָנִי לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מֵחֶלְקָן, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּמִין, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא מֵת הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ הַלֵּוִי אוֹ הֶעֱשִׁיר הֶעָנִי. מֵתוּ, צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין. אִם הִלְוָן בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁים:
The mishna continues the discussion of the presumption that a person remains alive. With regard to one who lends money to a priest, or to a Levite, or to a poor person, with the understanding that he will separate their portion of the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money, i.e., he will subtract from the debt owed by the priest or Levite the value of the teruma and tithes separated from the produce, he may separate the teruma and tithes from his produce on the basis of that money with the presumption that they are still alive, and he need not be concerned that perhaps the priest or the Levite died in the interim, or that the poor person became rich and is no longer eligible to be given the poor man’s tithe. The priest or Levite benefits from this arrangement, as he receives his gifts up front in the form of a loan. The Israelite benefits in that he does not need to seek out a priest or Levite each time he has produce from which he must separate teruma and tithes. If in fact they died, then he must obtain permission from the heirs in order to continue the arrangement. However, if he lent money to the deceased, and he stipulated in the presence of the court that the debt would be repaid in this manner, then he does not need to obtain permission from the heirs.
הַמַּנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת, מָעוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּמִין. אִם אָבְדוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹשֵׁשׁ מֵעֵת לְעֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְרָקִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַיַּיִן, בְּקָדִים שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי הֶחָג, וּבְהוֹצָאַת סְמָדַר, וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסַת מַיִם בַּבֹּסֶר:
With regard to one who sets aside produce with the understanding that he will separate terumot and tithes with it, so that when he has untithed produce he can render it fit by declaring that the teruma and tithes that must be separated will be from the produce that he had set aside for this purpose, or one who sets aside money with the understanding that he will separate and to redeem second tithe with it, then he may later separate the teruma or tithe with them, based on the presumption that the produce or the money are extant. He need not be concerned that perhaps the produce or money was lost in the meantime. If he discovers that they were lost, then he must be concerned that the produce or money that he set aside was lost, from the time until the same time, as will be explained in the Gemara, and he must separate teruma and tithes from the produce a second time; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks the wine that is set aside to be used for separating terumot and tithes for other wine to see if it has turned to vinegar, which would render it unfit for this purpose, at three times during the year: When the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, and when the blossoms fall and the grape buds emerge and appear as small clusters, and at the time when water enters and fills the unripe grape. Since there is a change in the weather at these times, one should check to ensure that the wine has not turned to vinegar.