(Mishnah): One who writes Tofsim of Gitin (the part that is the same for anyone) must leave blank the names of the husband and wife, and the date (until the husband tells him to write);

One who writes Tofsim of loan documents must leave blank the names of the lender and borrower, the amount of the loan, and the date;

One who writes Tofsim of sale documents must leave blank the names of the buyer and seller, the price, the field and the date;

This is an enactment.

R. Yehudah says, all of these cases are Pasul;

R. Elazar says, all are valid, except for Gitin, for it says "he will write for her" - Lishmah.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): On a Get, he must also postpone writing 'you are permitted to any man';

The Mishnah is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei, and a Get must be Lishmah.

Rav Yehudah needed to teach that all three Mishnayos (21b, 22b and ours) are like R. Elazar:

Had he taught only about the first Mishnah, we would have thought only that is like R. Elazar, to resolve the contradiction between the Reisha (we do not write a Get on something attached) and the Seifa (if he wrote it attached);

We might have thought that the second Mishnah, which says that (a deaf person, lunatic or minor can write a Get, because), a Get is Mekuyam only through its signatures, is like R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei;

Had Rav Yehudah taught only that that Mishnah is like R. Elazar, one might have thought that our Mishnah is not like R. Elazar, since R. Elazar argues in the end of our Mishnah. Rav Yehudah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): This is an enactment.

Question: What is this enactment?

Answer #1 (R. Yonason): It is an enactment to help scribes. The Mishnah is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei;

Really, we should decree to require even the Tofes to be written Lishmah (lest the Toref be written `Lo Lishmah). Chachamim were lenient, to enable scribes to start writing Gitin before the husband requests one .

R. Yehudah says that all are Pasul. He decrees that the Tofes of a Get must be written Lishmah, lest the Toref be Lo Lishmah;

He decrees this about other documents as well, due to Gitin.

R. Elazar says that all are valid, except for Gitin. He decrees that the Tofes must be written Lishmah, due to the Toref;

He does not decree about other documents due to Gitin.

(Mishnah - R. Elazar): (Tofsim Lo Lishmah are valid, except for Gitin,) for it says "he will write for her."

Question: The verse requires only the Toref to be Lishmah!

Answer: The Mishnah means, because it says "he will write (the Toref) for her", Lishmah. (This is why R. Elazar decrees that even the Tofes must be Lishmah.)

Contradiction: R. Elazar contradicts himself! (Rav Yehudah said that the first Tana is R. Elazar. He does not require the Tofes to be Lishmah!)

Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Elazar.

Answer #2 (to question (i) - R. Shabsi): The enactment is to avoid quarrels. It is like R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei;

Really, even the Toref should not need to be written Lishmah. It is an enactment not to write the Toref until the husband requests a Get, lest a woman hear a scribe writing a Get with her name. She will think that her husband requested the Get, and will quarrel with her husband.

Answer #3 (Rav Chisda): The enactment is to prevent Igun (a situation in which a woman cannot remarry).

Some explain this like R. Meir, and some explain it like R. Elazar.

Some explain this like R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei. Really, even the Toref should not need to be written Lishmah;

We require the scribe to delay writing the Toref until requested, for sometimes a man gets angry, and if a Get is already written he will divorce her immediately, and she may have difficulty remarrying.

Some explain this like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei. Really, we should require even the Tofes to be written Lishmah;

We allow scribes to write Tofsim before the husband requests, for sometimes the husband is going abroad and wants to divorce his wife, but he does not have time to wait for a full Get to be written;

If the scribe did not have Tofsim ready, the husband would leave without divorcing her.

(Mishnah): (He must delay writing) the date.

The Mishnah does not specify, so presumably this applies whether he divorces her from Eirusin or from Nisu'in.

Question: Granted, from Nisu'in, the date is needed, whether the reason for the date is to prevent the husband from (fraudulently) saving her from being killed for adultery, or to prevent him from taking Peros of her property that he is not entitled to.

If the Get is from Eirusin, we understand why the date is needed according to the opinion that the date is to prevent saving her from being killed;

According to the opinion that it is to prevent him from stealing her Peros, why is the date needed? A husband has no rights to Peros before Nisu'in!

Answer (Rav Amram): Ula said that it is an enactment on behalf of the child. I did not understand this answer at first.

(Beraisa): If a man said 'write a Get to my Arusah. After Nisu'in, I will divorce her', the Get is Pasul.

(Ula): This is a decree, lest people will say that he divorced her before she became pregnant from him. (Since the Get mentions that she is an Arusah, people will assume that he divorced her before Nisu'in.)

(Rav Amram): Similarly, they decreed to put the date even on a Get written for an Arusah, lest (he will give it after Nisu'in and) people will think that she became pregnant from him after the divorce.

(Ze'iri): The Halachah follows R. Elazar.

Question: Is this even for other documents (we permit writing the Tofes in advance)?!

Rav Papi taught that if a Kiyum (validation) of a document was written before the witnesses verified the signatures, the Kiyum is Pasul.

The reason is, it appears false (a Kiyum says that the witnesses (already) confirmed the signatures). Similarly, writing a monetary document without the request of the borrower or seller appears false!

Answer: Rav Papi's law is wrong.

(Rav Nachman): According to R. Meir, if a man finds a Get (with his name and his wife's name) in the trash, if he had it signed and gave it, it is valid.

Chachamim argue with R. Meir only about Gitei Nashim, since they must be written Lishmah. They agree about monetary documents.

(R. Asi): If a document was written for a loan, the loan was paid, and the borrower borrowed the same sum again from the lender, the original document is Pasul for the second loan. Its power to obligate the borrower to pay was nullified when the first loan was paid.

If not for the fact that its power was Batel, the document could be used again. We are not concerned that it looks false (it was written for a different loan)!