Gittin 21b — the Talmud in English

It is not possible to cut it off,

for it is impossible to cut the hand off the slave, since it is forbidden to injure a slave, because he is subject to the mitzvot, and therefore he must give her the entire slave for the get.

Rather, as for the horn of a cow, let him cut it off and give it to her!

He should cut off the horn upon which the get is written and give it to her. And why must he give her the entire cow?

And we answer:

The verse says “[A0011]]and he shall write” — “[A0012]]and he shall give

“and he shall write”—

“and he shall give”

it to her.”

And we expound: only

one that requires nothing other than writing and giving,

so that immediately after the writing the get stands ready for giving, is a valid get.

This one is excluded, for it requires writing, cutting off, and giving,

since it still needs to be cut off from the cow before the giving, and therefore it is not valid. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

One may not write [a get] on anything that possesses the breath of life, nor on food.

And we inquire concerning it:

What is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s reason?

And we answer:

For it was taught:

It is stated: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance and give it into her hand.” And from the fact that it is written

“scroll,”

I have only

that it is possible to write a get

only

on

a scroll

of parchment alone.

From where is it derived to include

that it is possible to write

on anything?

The verse says “[A0041]]and he shall write for her.”

“and he shall write for her.”

For this is a superfluous phrase, since the verse could have written, “And he shall give a scroll of severance into her hand.” And we expound: “and he shall write for her”

in any event!

The verse teaches that it is also possible to write on anything.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying

“scroll”?

It is to tell you:

Just as a scroll

is

a thing that does not possess the breath of life and is not food, so too, anything that does not possess the breath of life and is not food

is valid for writing a get upon it, excluding something that possesses the breath of life and is food.

And the Rabbis

of the Mishna, who validate even when it is written on a cow or a slave, which possess the breath of life, respond to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

If

it had been written, “And he shall write for her in a scroll,” indeed it would have meant

as you say,

that he should write on parchment; and from the additional expression “and he shall write for her,” it would be possible to add anything resembling parchment.

But

now that it is written

“scroll,”

the implication is that the verse came to state the content of its writing: he should write for her a scroll, and

for the writing of

a narrative of

words it came,

that he should write for her words of severance. And in fact, he can write on whatever he wishes.

And we inquire concerning it:

And the Rabbis,

according to whose view “scroll” does not imply parchment, behold, the verse did not establish for us what he should write the get on. If so, it follows that it means that he should write it on anything he wishes.

And if so,

this “[A0072]]and he shall write” —

“and he shall write”—

what do they make of it?

It would have been sufficient for the verse to say, “And he shall give a scroll of severance into her hand”!

And we answer:

They require it

for the purpose of expounding that specifically

through writing

she

is divorced, and she is not divorced through money.

For if the husband said to her, “Take a peruta and be divorced from me through it,” she is not divorced.

For without the exclusion of the verse, it might

have entered your mind to say: I compare “[A0084]]departure”

“departure” [a bill of divorce]

[a get]

to “[A0087]]becoming”

“becoming” [betrothal], as it is written: “And she shall leave his house, go, and become the wife of another man.” We would expound:

[betrothal], as it is written: “And she shall leave his house, and go, and become [the wife] of another man.” And we would expound:

Just as becoming,

when she makes herself become [married] to the husband, namely, through betrothal, can be

through money, so too departure,

when she leaves her husband,

also

the departure can be

through money.

It teaches us “[A0097]]“and he shall write,” that she is divorced only through writing, and not through money.”

“and he shall write”: She is divorced only through writing, and not through money.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who expounds “and he shall write” to include anything that possesses the breath of life and is not food,

derives

that it is impossible to divorce through money

from “[A0103]]a scroll of severance.”

“a scroll of severance.”

“Severance” is written adjacent to “scroll,” to teach that only

a scroll

severs her, and nothing else severs her!

And the other one,

the Rabbis,

require it

for the exposition of “a scroll of severance,” to teach that the get must be

a thing that severs between him and her,

that it must not contain any condition that binds them together, but the get must sever and separate them entirely.

As it was taught: He said to her:

“

This is your get on condition that you do not drink wine,”

or

“on condition that you do not go to your father’s house,”

if he stipulated that she not do these things

forever,

since throughout all her days she will be bound to him, for because of him she refrains from drinking wine forever,

this is not a complete severance.

But if he stipulated that she not do these things for only

thirty days, this is a complete severance,

and she is immediately permitted to marry another man, except that she must fulfill the condition. And such a get is effective, since in the end they will come to separation and severance.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who expounds from “a scroll of severance” that a scroll severs her and nothing else severs her, will derive the law that it must be a thing that severs between him and her

from

“he severed”

“severance.”

Since the verse could have said “a scroll that severs,” but said “severance,” this additional expression came to teach that the get must be a thing that severs between him and her.

And the other one,

the Rabbis, who do not derive this law from the additional expression “he severed,” “severance,” their reason is

that

“he severed,”

“severance,”

they do not expound.

Mishna:

One may not write

the get

on

a thing

attached to the ground,

since it must be detached after the writing and given to her, and it is invalid, as we expounded above from “and he shall write,” “and he shall give,” that the get must not require writing, cutting off, and giving. And if

he wrote it while attached, detached it,

and then

signed it and gave it to her, it is valid.

For after the fact, it is sufficient that the signing of the get be while it is detached.

Rabbi Yehuda invalidates it until its writing and its signing are while it is detached.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: One may not write

the get

neither on erased paper nor on diftara,

parchment that has not been processed completely,

because it can be forged.

For if the get was written on erased paper, it is possible to erase it again up to the place of the witnesses and write anew; and if a condition had initially been written in it, the woman can omit it, and the matter will not be recognizable, since the witnesses too are signed on erased paper. And similarly with diftara; and on diftara the erasure is not recognizable.

And the Sages validate

writing on something that can be forged, because they hold like Rabbi Elazar, that the witnesses to the delivery effect the get. Therefore, there is no concern that the get will be forged, since the witnesses to the delivery read the get and know its contents.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he wrote it on something attached,

he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, it is valid.

And we inquire concerning it:

But you said in the first clause

that

one may not write

on something attached to the ground!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The latter clause, which teaches that it is valid, is speaking of a case in which he wrote the get while it was attached,

and this is when he left the place of the essential text [“

uncovering of the document”], leaving blank the place for writing the names of the man and the woman and the date, which are the principal part of the get, and he wrote them only after it was detached. Therefore, it is valid.

And similarly Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: And this is when he left the place of the essential text.

And similarly Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: And this is when he left the place of the essential text.

And what we said, that he must write at least the essential text of the get while it is detached—

and it is Rabbi Elazar’s view, for he says: The witnesses to the delivery effect the get,

the witnesses before whom the get was delivered to the woman are the principal witnesses of the get, and through their testimony they make it a scroll of severance. By Torah law, witnesses to the signatures are therefore not needed at all; and consequently, what the Torah says, “and he shall write,” refers to the writing of the get, and it must be while detached.

And this is what

the tanna

of the Mishna is saying:

One may not write

the form

of the get, the general wording found in every get, while it is attached,

lest he write

also

the essential text

of the get while it is attached and thereby invalidate it.

But if after the fact

he wrote the form

while it was attached,

and detached it,

and afterward

wrote the essential text,

and gave it to her,

it is valid.

And Reish Lakish said:

“

He signed”

is what we learned in the latter clause of the Mishna, and its meaning is as it sounds: it is sufficient if only the signatures of the witnesses were while it was detached, even if the entire get was written while attached.

And it is Rabbi Meir’s view, for he says: Witnesses to the signatures effect the get,

since they are the principal part of the get. And the principal writing of the get that the Torah stated is the signatures of the witnesses; only their signatures need to be while detached.

And this is what

the tanna

of the Mishna is saying:

One may not write

the essential text

of the get while attached,

a decree lest he sign

the witnesses also while attached.

But if after the fact

he wrote the essential text

while attached,

detached it,

and afterward

signed it and gave it to her, it is valid.

If he wrote

a get

on a potsherd of a perforated flowerpot, it is valid,

because

he removes it and gives it to her.

He gives her the entire flowerpot in its entirety for the get, and here there is no “requiring cutting off” between the writing and the giving. And we are also not concerned lest he break the flowerpot and give her the piece of pottery upon which the get was written, with the result that it would “require cutting off,” because he is not ruining the flowerpot.

If he wrote it

on a leaf of a perforated flowerpot.

Abaye said: It is valid.

Rava said: It is invalid.

And we explain their dispute: