Gittin 85b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Judah says:

it is also necessary to write

“and this,”

and this bill of divorce,

“which shall be for you from me,”

which shall be yours from me, shall be

a document of dismissal

a document of divorce,

and a letter of abandonment

and a letter of abandonment from me,

and a bill of release

and a bill of severance,

to go

to go

to marry

and to be married

to any man whom you wish

to any person whom you wish to marry.” But if it is written in the bill of divorce only, “Behold, you are permitted to any person,” there is no proof that his intention is to divorce her with this bill of divorce, and there is room to interpret that he divorces her by speech, while what he gives her—the bill of divorce—is only evidence of the divorce.

The body of

the essential wording of

a bill of emancipation

that they write for a Canaanite maidservant is:

“Behold, you are a free woman; behold, you belong to yourself.”

Gemara:

It is obvious,

and there is no doubt about the matter, that if

he said to his wife,

he wrote in her bill of divorce

“Behold, you are a free woman,”

instead of writing, “Behold, you are permitted to any person,”

he has said nothing at all,

because this is the wording of emancipating a maidservant from servitude, and this is not the wording of divorcing a woman.

And likewise it is obvious that if

he said to his maidservant, “Behold, you are permitted to any person,” he has said nothing at all,

for this is not the wording of emancipation but the wording of divorcing a woman, and she still remains obligated to labor .

But there is a question concerning a case in which

he said to a woman, “Behold, you belong to yourself”: what is the law?

What is his intention? Is

he saying it completely,

and she is fully divorced,

or

perhaps

he is saying it with regard to labor,

so that the products of her labor, which until today belonged to the husband, shall from now on belong to her, and his intention is not to divorce her from him completely?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

from this,

as we learned

“The body of a bill of emancipation: ‘Behold, you are a free woman; behold, you belong to yourself.’”

And one can learn a kal va-chomer that the wording “Behold, you belong to yourself” is the wording of divorce:

And as for a slave,

a Canaanite slave,

whose body he acquires,

for his body is acquired by his master, nevertheless,

when he says to him, “Behold, you belong to yourself,” he acquires his body.

If he says to him, “Behold, you belong to yourself,” the slave goes free and acquires himself;

a woman, whose body he does not acquire,

for the husband has no ownership of the woman’s body,

is it not all the more so

that if he says to her, “Behold, you belong to yourself,” she is divorced?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

He said to his slave,

he wrote to his slave in a bill of emancipation:

“I have no dealings with you; what is the law?”

Is this the wording of a deed of emancipation or not?

Rav Hanin said to Rav Ashi, and some say

and some say that

Rav Hanin of Mehoza

was the one who said

to Rav Ashi:

Come and hear

from this,

as it was taught:

One who sells his slave to a gentile

the Sages penalized him, requiring him to redeem him from the gentile; nevertheless, he does not return to being his slave, but after he redeems him from the gentile,

he goes free. And

even though the slave goes free,

he must

receive

a bill of emancipation from his first master.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said

that he does not go free without a bill of emancipation? It is only when

he did not write an ono for him [

a document; and below it will be explained what document he writes for him],

but

if

he wrote an ono for him,

he does not require a bill of emancipation, but

“this is his emancipation!”

The document constitutes a deed of emancipation.

What is an ono,

what is an ono document?

Rav Sheshet said: It is that he writes to him, “When you flee from him,

from the gentile,

I have no dealings with you,”

and therefore, when he leaves the gentile, he does not require a bill of emancipation.

And it is proven that the wording “I have no dealings with you” constitutes the wording of emancipation:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says

that one must write in the bill of divorce

“And this shall be for you from me, a document of dismissal and a letter of abandonment.”

Over what do they disagree?

Over what did Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis disagree—whether it is necessary to write “and this” in the bill of divorce or not?

The Rabbis hold: Partial expressions

that are not conclusive—every partial statement, even though it does not establish his intention through this statement—

are partial expressions,

as though he said the complete statement,

and

therefore

even though he did not write for her “and this,”

and we have no proof from the body of the bill of divorce that he wishes to divorce her with this bill of divorce, nevertheless

the matter is established that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce,

since we see that the bill of divorce has emerged from under her hand, we have proof that his intention is to divorce her with this bill of divorce.

And Rabbi Judah holds: Partial expressions that are not conclusive are not partial expressions,

for when he said a partial statement whose intention is not clearly established by that statement, it is not considered a statement,

and

therefore—

the reason is that he wrote for her “and this,”

specifically if he writes “and this,”

for the matter is established

that we have proof

that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce,

that he intends to divorce her with this bill of divorce.

But if he did not write for her “and this,” they say,

there is room for error, that

he divorced her by speech,

intending to divorce her through his statement, saying to her, “Behold, you are permitted to any person,”

and

what he gave her,

the document,

the bill of divorce, is only

merely evidence

that she should have testimony and proof that she is unmarried.

In order to understand the following discussion, we must first present the wording of the bill of divorce form !

“I have released you to yourself,”

I have released you to yourself,

you

are

so-and-so daughter of so-and-so, who were my wife from before this time,

who had been my wife for some time,

and now

and at present

I have released,

I have released,

and abandoned,

and abandoned,

and dismissed

and sent away

you

you,

so that you shall be

so that you shall be

authorized

authorized

and ruling

and ruling

over yourself,

over yourself,

to go

to go

and marry

and be married

to anyone whom you wish,

with anyone whom you wish,

and no person shall protest against you

and no person is entitled to protest against you

from this day

from this day

and forever.

and onward.

And this,

and this

which shall be for you from me,

shall be yours from me,

a document of dismissal

a document of divorce,

and a letter of abandonment

and a letter of abandonment from me

according to the law of Moses and Israel.

And now the Gemara explains several laws concerning precision in writing the bill of divorce:

Abaye said:

One who writes a bill of divorce,

when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, must take care

not to write “and din”

with a yod,

for it implies “and judgment” [

with a hiriq], in which case it would imply as though he said to her: I divorce you only if according to law I am obligated to divorce you; but if according to law I am not obligated to divorce you, you are not divorced ,

but

he must take care to write

“and this”

without a yod.

And

likewise he must take care

not to write “iggeret”

with a yod,

for it implies “roof,”

in which case it would imply that he divorces her with an “iggeret” [with a patah under the resh], from the language of roof, whereas he must divorce her with a bill of divorce ,

but

he must take care to write

“igeret.”

And

likewise he must take care

not to write “to go”

with a yod,

for it implies

that it would then imply that

to me

you shall be

a goer,

because of this document, whereas it comes only to divorce her.

And

likewise he must take care

not to write “to mock”

instead of “to go,”

for it implies

that it would then imply

“for laughter,”

as though he came to mock her; and so that it should not appear as a het, there must be a space between the leg of the heh and its roof.

And when he writes to her that he gives her the bill of divorce

“so that you shall be,”

so that she may marry anyone

“whom you wish,”

she must take care to write the word “so that you shall be” with

three

with three yods; and likewise, when he writes

“whom you wish,”

he must write it with

three yods,

for if he writes it with two yods,

for it implies,

it will be understood in the plural

“you shall be and you shall wish,”

and it will imply that through this bill of divorce all the women in the world are permitted to marry.

And

when he writes that he gives her a document of dismissal and a letter of abandonment,

to lengthen it

he must lengthen

the vav of “dismissal” and the vav of “abandonment,”

for if he does not lengthen the vav,

for it implies,

it will be understood as though it says

“dismissed and abandoned”

in the plural, and its meaning will be that this document is for other women and not for this woman.

And

when he writes for her, “and now I have released and abandoned,”

he must lengthen the vav of “and now”

he must lengthen the second vav of the word “and now,”

for it implies,

for if he does not lengthen the vav, it will be understood as though it says

“and enough,”

whose meaning is from the language of “enough”—that is, with nothing—and he divorces her without a document of severance.

And

likewise he must take care

not to write

in the bill of divorce

“not to be married”

with an alef,

for it implies

that it would then be understood as though it were written as two words,

“she shall not be married,”

that she is forbidden to marry, and this contradicts the essence of the bill of divorce,

but

he must write

“to be married”

with a heh, whose meaning is that she shall be permitted to marry anyone whom she wishes.

They raised a question before them: Do we require “and this,”

is the halakha according to Rabbi Judah, that one must write “and this” in the bill of divorce,

or do we not require “and this,”

or is the halakha according to the Rabbis, that it is not necessary to write “and this”?

Come and hear—

For Rava instituted in bills of divorce,

that Rava instituted for scribes to write in the bill of divorce:

“How so-and-so son of so-and-so,”

the name of the divorcer and his father’s name,

“released and dismissed”

and divorces

“so-and-so his wife,”

so-and-so who is his wife,

“who was his wife from before this time,”

who had been his wife for some time, and he divorces her

“from this day and forever,”

from this day onward.

The Gemara infers

“but he did not say ‘and this,’”

for “and this” was not mentioned in Rava’s instruction that the scribes write it, and this implies that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Judah.

And we refute:

“But according to your reasoning,”

even according to your view,

“did he say all of them?”

Did Rava mention in his enactment all the other expressions that it is necessary to write in a bill of divorce?

Rather,

certainly, even though Rava did not mention in his enactment that it is necessary to write the other expressions, nevertheless it is certainly

necessary

to write them; and if so, even though Rava did not mention that it is necessary to write “and this,”

here too it is necessary

certainly it must be written.

And Rava needed to institute only those matters in which there is a novel point—

For what Rava instituted, to write

“from this day,”

came

to exclude

to exclude

Rabbi Yose, who said

with regard to a dangerously ill person who wishes to divorce his wife only on the condition that he dies, and said, “This is your bill of divorce if I die”: even though it implies that the bill of divorce will take effect only after he dies, and it is impossible to give a bill of divorce after death, nevertheless Rabbi Yose holds that it is not necessary to write that the bill of divorce shall take effect from today, because

the date of the document proves its meaning,

that his intention is to divorce her from today and [that it remain effective] after his death.