Gittin 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

It is not possible to cut it off,

for it is impossible to cut off the slave’s hand, since it is forbidden to injure a slave, as he is obligated in mitzvot, and therefore he must give her the entire slave in exchange for the bill of divorce.

But in the case of a cow’s horn, let him cut it off and give it to her!

He should cut off the horn on which the bill of divorce is written and give it to her. Why, then, must he give her the entire cow?

And we answer:

The verse says “

and he writes” — “

and he gives

it to her.”

And we expound this to mean only:

one that requires nothing but writing and giving,

a bill of divorce that is ready to be given immediately after it is written, is a valid bill of divorce.

This excludes this case, which requires writing, cutting off, and giving,

as it still must be cut off from the cow before it is given, and therefore it is invalid. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

A bill of divorce may be written neither on something that contains living matter nor on food.

We inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

And we answer:

As it was taught:

It is stated: “And he writes for her a scroll of severance and gives it into her hand.” And since it is written

“scroll,”

I have only

that a bill of divorce may be written

only

on

a scroll,

that is, parchment alone.

From where is it derived to include

that it may be written

on anything?

The verse therefore states “

and he writes for her.”

This phrase is superfluous, since the verse could have stated, “And he gives a scroll of severance into her hand.” We therefore expound: “And he writes for her”

in any case!

The verse teaches that it may be written even on anything.

If so, what does the verse come to teach by stating

“scroll”?

It comes to tell you:

Just as a scroll

is

something that contains no living matter and is not food, so too anything that contains no living matter and is not food

is valid for writing a bill of divorce upon; this excludes something that contains living matter or is food.

And the Rabbis,

the authors of the Mishna, who permit writing it even on a cow or slave, which contain living matter, respond to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

If

the verse had stated, “And he writes for her on a scroll,” it would indeed have implied

as you say,

that he should write on parchment, and from the additional wording “and he writes for her” we would include anything similar to parchment.

But

now that it is written

“scroll,”

the verse seems to be stating the content of what he writes: He writes her a scroll, and

for the recording

of

words is it stated,

that he should write for her words of severance. In fact, he may write on whatever he wishes.

We inquire:

And according to the Rabbis,

who do not understand “scroll” as referring to parchment, the verse has not specified what he should write the bill of divorce on. If so, it is automatically implied that he may write it on anything he wishes.

And if so,

this

“and he writes” —

what do they derive from it?

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

And we answer:

They require it

to expound that only

through writing

is she

divorced, and she is not divorced through money.

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

For without the exclusion stated by the verse, it might have

entered your mind to say: We should juxtapose

“departure” [the bill of divorce]

[a get]

with

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

Just as becoming,

Just as becoming,

when she makes herself the wife of a husband, i.e., through betrothal, can be

through money, so too departure,

when she leaves her husband,

also

can be accomplished

through money.

It teaches us “and he writes” 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 derives from “and he writes” that anything containing living matter and not food may be used,

derives

that one cannot divorce through money

from “

a scroll of severance.”

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

a scroll

severs her, and nothing else severs her!

And the other one,

the Rabbis,

requires it

for the exposition of “a scroll of severance,” teaching that the bill of divorce must be

something that severs between him and her,

with no condition that binds them together; rather, the bill of divorce must sever and completely separate them.

As it was taught:

If he said to her:

“This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you do not drink wine,”

or

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

if he stipulated that she may not do these things

forever,

then, since she will remain bound to him all her life, refraining forever from drinking wine because of him,

this is not a complete severance.

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

thirty days, this is a complete severance,

and she is immediately permitted to marry another man, although she must fulfill the condition. Such a bill of divorce is effective, since ultimately they will come to separation and severance.

And the other one,

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

from

“he severed”

“severance.”

Since the verse could have stated “a scroll that severs” but instead stated “severance,” this additional wording teaches that the bill of divorce must be something that severs between him and her.

And the other one,

the Rabbis, who do not derive this law from the additional wording “he severed” and “severance,” say that their reason is

that

“he severed”

“severance”

they do not expound.

Mishna:

One may not write

the bill of divorce

on

something that is

attached to the ground,

since it must be detached after the writing and given to her, and it is invalid, as we expounded earlier from “and he writes” and “and he gives”: the bill of divorce may not require writing, cutting off, and giving. But if

he wrote it while attached, detached it,

and then

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

After the fact, it is sufficient that the signatures on the bill of divorce be made after it has been detached.

Rabbi Yehuda invalidates it until both its writing and its signing have been done after it was detached.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: One may not write

the bill of divorce

either on erased paper or on diftera,

parchment that has not been fully processed,

because it can be forged.

If the bill of divorce was written on erased paper, one can erase it again up to the place of the witnesses and write it anew. If it originally contained a condition, the woman could omit it, and the alteration would not be noticeable, since the witnesses too are signed on the erased paper. The same applies to diftera, on which an erasure is not noticeable.

And the Sages deem it valid

to write on something that can be forged, because they hold in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses to the delivery establish the bill of divorce. Therefore, there is no concern that the bill of divorce will be forged, since the witnesses to the delivery read the bill of divorce and know its contents.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he wrote it while attached,

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

We inquire:

But you said in the first clause

that

one may not write

while it is attached to the ground!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

The latter clause, which teaches that it is valid, is discussing a case in which he wrote it while attached

but left the place of the essential text blank [“the exposed portion of the document”]; he left blank the place for writing the names of the man and woman and the date, which are the essential elements of the bill of divorce, and wrote them only after it was detached. Therefore, it is valid.

meaning that he left blank the place for writing the names of the man and the woman and the date, which are the essential parts of the bill of divorce, and wrote them only after it was detached. Therefore, it is valid.

And Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya likewise said: And this is when he left the place of the essential text blank.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: And this is when he left the place of the essential text blank.

What we have said, that at least the essential text of the bill of divorce must be written after it has been detached,

is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses to the delivery establish the bill of divorce.

The witnesses before whom the bill of divorce is delivered to the woman are the primary witnesses of the bill of divorce; through their testimony they make it a scroll of severance. By Torah law, witnesses to the signatures are not needed at all. Therefore, what the Torah says, “and he writes,” refers to the writing of the bill of divorce, which must be done after it is detached.

And this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying:

One may not initially write

the formula

of the bill of divorce—the general text found in every bill of divorce—while it is attached,

lest he write

also

the essential text

of the bill of divorce while it is attached, thereby invalidating it.

But if, after the fact,

he wrote the formula

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: “

Signed”

is what we learned

in the latter clause of the Mishna. Its meaning is literal: It is sufficient that only the witnesses’ signatures were made after it was detached, even if the entire bill of divorce was written while attached.

And it is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says: The witnesses to the signatures establish the bill of divorce,

as they are its essential witnesses. The essential writing of the bill of divorce mentioned by the Torah refers to the signatures of the witnesses, and only their signatures must be made after it has been detached.

And this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying:

One may not initially write

the essential text

of the bill of divorce while it is attached,

as a decree lest he sign

the witnesses’ signatures also while it is attached.

But if, after the fact,

he wrote the essential text

while it was attached,

detached it,

and afterward

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

If he wrote

the bill of divorce

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

because

he can take it and give it to her.

He gives her the entire flowerpot intact in exchange for the bill of divorce, so there is no requirement of cutting off between the writing and the giving. Nor do we fear that he might break the flowerpot and give her the piece of pottery on which the bill of divorce was written, thereby creating a requirement of cutting off, because doing so would damage 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: