We begin this segment of our learning by wrapping up the deep sugya of bereichah (retroactive clarification). Rava and Rav Mesharshiyya discuss whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon accept this principle, clarifying that it applies whether a person makes a condition dependent on their own decision or on the decision of others. We then transition into a beautiful new Mishna that deals with the halachos of writing shetaros (documents) and gittin.
The Mishna teaches us about a scribe who wants to prepare the standard formulas (tofes) of documents in advance to save time. We learn what specific details must be left blank—such as names, dates, and monetary amounts—in gittin, loan documents, and deeds of sale. This leads into a fundamental machlokes between the Sages, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar regarding whether we can write these standard parts in advance, and how the requirement of writing a get "lishmah" (for her sake) affects this halacha.
לֹא רָצָה הָאָב – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
And if the father does not desire it, she is not betrothed. This proves that Rabbi Shimon holds there is retroactive clarification.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֵּין לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; לָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת עַצְמוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא תּוֹלֶה בְּדַעַת אֲחֵרִים – אִית לְהוּ בְּרֵירָה;
Rava said to him, to Rav Mesharshiyya: Whether according to Rabbi Yehuda or whether according to Rabbi Shimon; it is no different if one makes the outcome dependent on his own decision, and it is no different if one makes it dependent on the decision of others; they both accept the principle of retroactive clarification.
וְהָתָם – כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁמָּא יִבָּקַע הַנּוֹד, וְנִמְצָא זֶה שׁוֹתֶה טְבָלִים לְמַפְרֵעַ? אָמַר לָהֶם: לִכְשֶׁיִּבָּקַע.
And there, in the Mishnah of the Samaritan wine, the reason they prohibit it is not because they reject retroactive clarification, but rather as the reason is taught in the Tosefta: The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Do you not agree that perhaps the wineskin will burst before he can separate the tithes, and this person will have been found retroactively to be drinking untithed produce? He said to them: When it bursts, we will worry; until then we do not. Thus, they actually accept retroactive clarification.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוֹתֵב טוֹפְסֵי גִּיטִּין, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ, וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה, וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן.
MISHNAH: One who writes the standard parts of bills of divorce in advance must leave empty the place of the man's name, and the place of the woman's name, and the place of the date.
שְׁטָרֵי מִלְוָה – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַמִּלְוָה, מְקוֹם הַלֹּוֶה, מְקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת, מְקוֹם הַזְּמַן.
If he writes the standard parts of loan documents, he must leave empty the place of the lender, the place of the borrower, the place of the money being loaned, and the place of the date.
שְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הַלּוֹקֵחַ, וּמְקוֹם הַמּוֹכֵר, מָקוֹם הַמָּעוֹת, מְקוֹם הַשָּׂדֶה, וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן; מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה.
If he writes the standard parts of documents of sale, he must leave empty the place of the purchaser, and the place of the seller, the place of the money, the place of the field, and the place of the date; due to the ordinance.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל בְּכוּלָּן.
Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of them if their standard parts were written in advance.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.
Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce of women, as it is stated: "And he shall write for her", which implies that the writing must be done for her sake.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ אַף מְקוֹם ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״;
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One must also leave empty the place of the essential formula: "Behold, you are permitted to any man".
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ.
And this unattributed ruling of the Mishnah is according to Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of transmission effect the divorce, and we require the writing of the essential part of the bill of divorce to be done for her sake.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵין כּוֹתְבִין״ וְקָתָנֵי ״כִּתְבוּ״;
And it is necessary for Shmuel to state this in all three places; for if he had taught us only regarding that first Mishnah about writing on something attached to the ground, we would say it is only in that Mishnah that we can establish it as Rabbi Elazar, because it teaches "We do not write" and then teaches "Write", which implies a distinction that fits Rabbi Elazar.
אֲבָל סֵיפָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּחוֹתְמָיו״, אֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.
But in the latter clause of the next Mishnah, which teaches "for the validation of the bill of divorce is only through its signatories," I would say it is according to Rabbi Meir, who says: The signing witnesses effect the divorce, and the writing itself does not need to be for her sake.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהַהִיא, הָהִיא נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְאוֹקֹמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר;
And if he had taught us only regarding that second Mishnah, we would say that one also can be established as Rabbi Elazar by explaining that it refers to writing the standard part.
אֲבָל הָא, אֵימָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָוֵי – רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; צְרִיכָא.
But as for this Mishnah here, I would say: Since the latter clause is explicitly attributed to Rabbi Elazar, the first clause is not according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, it is necessary to state that all three are according to Rabbi Elazar.
מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּנָה: מַאי תַּקָּנָה?
The Mishnah states that the scribe may write the standard parts in advance "due to the ordinance." The Gemara asks: What is this ordinance?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת סוֹפֵר;
Rabbi Yonatan said: Due to the ordinance for the benefit of the scribe, so that he will have documents ready and not have to write in a hurry.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי; וּבְדִין הוּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ טוֹפֶס נָמֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת סוֹפְרִים שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן.
And it is according to Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of transmission effect the divorce; and by right, even the standard part also should not be written in advance, but because of the ordinance for the benefit of scribes, the Rabbis permitted it.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל בְּכוּלָּן – גָּזַר טוֹפֶס אַטּוּ תּוֹרֶף, גָּזַר שְׁטָרוֹת אַטּוּ גִּיטִּין.
The Mishnah teaches: Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all of them. The Gemara explains: He decreed against writing the standard part due to the concern that one might write the essential part in advance, and he decreed against writing other financial documents due to the concern of writing bills of divorce.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים – טוֹפֶס אַטּוּ תּוֹרֶף גָּזַר, שְׁטָרוֹת אַטּוּ גִּיטִּין לָא גָּזַר.
And Rabbi Elazar deems all of them valid except for bills of divorce of women. The Gemara explains: He decreed against writing the standard part of a bill of divorce due to the essential part, but he did not decree against writing other financial documents due to bills of divorce.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״: וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב ״לָהּ״ – אַתּוֹרֶף הוּא דִּכְתִיב!
The Mishnah states: As it is stated: "And he shall write for her." The Gemara objects: But when "for her" is written, it is written concerning the essential part, not the standard part!
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ.
Rather, say that Rabbi Elazar's reasoning is: Because it is stated: "And he shall write for her", which means the essential part must be written for her sake, and we decree against writing the standard part of a bill of divorce lest one write the essential part as well.
The Gemara first clarifies that according to Rava, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon accept the principle of bereichah, and explains how the Sages' objection to Rabbi Meir in the case of purchasing wine from Samaritans relates to this concept. Moving into the Mishna, we learn that a scribe must leave the essential details blank when preparing the standard text of documents in advance. While Rabbi Yehuda invalidates all such pre-written documents and Rabbi Elazar validates all except gittin, Shmuel explains that our Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar's view that the witnesses to the delivery of the get are the ones who effect the divorce. Because of this, the writing of the get—including the essential phrase of divorce—must be done specifically lishmah, for the sake of the woman.
Our Gemara teaches us a profound lesson about the power of intention. When a scribe writes a get, he cannot simply use a pre-written, generic template. The Torah says, "And he writes for her", it must be written "lishmah," specifically for this husband and this wife. Even the most standard, technical parts of the document (the tofes) cannot be written in advance without their specific names in mind, because a holy bond cannot be dissolved through a generic, assembly-line process.
How often do we live our lives on "autopilot," using pre-written templates for our daily avodah? We go through the motions of davening, putting on tefillin, or giving tzedakah, but our minds are elsewhere. We are merely filling in the blanks of a routine we established years ago. The Torah is teaching us that holiness requires "lishmah", it demands that we bring our personal, conscious intention into the present moment.
If a physical document of divorce requires such specific, tailored intent to be valid, how much more so do our daily connections with the Aibershter and with our families require our full presence. We cannot build a true connection with Hashem or with our loved ones using generic, pre-packaged efforts.
Today, choose one mitzvah or one tefillah, even a short brachah before eating, and pause for three seconds before you begin. Consciously think, "I am doing this right now, specifically to connect with Hashem," transforming a routine action into a customized act of holy intention.