Gittin 85b (פה:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda says:

it is also necessary to write: “

And this,]]

and this bill of divorce,

which shall be for you from me,]]

which shall belong to you from me, shall be

a scroll of divorce]]

a scroll 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

and marry]]

and marry

whomever you wish]]

“whomever you wish to marry.” However, if it is written in the bill of divorce only, “Behold, you are permitted to marry any man,” there is no proof that his intention is to divorce her with this bill of divorce. It is possible to interpret his intention as divorcing her verbally, while the fact that he gives her the bill of divorce serves only as evidence of the divorce.

The essential wording of

the main text of the wording of

a bill of emancipation

that is written 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 to his wife in her bill of divorce

“Behold, you are a free woman,”

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

he has said nothing,

since this is the wording used to emancipate a maidservant from servitude, and it is not the wording of a woman’s divorce.

It is likewise obvious that if

he said to his maidservant, “Behold, you are permitted to marry any man,” he has said nothing,]]

as this is not the wording of emancipation, but rather the wording of a woman’s divorce, and she remains obligated to perform labor for him.

But one may question the case where

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

What was his intention? Is it that

he said it absolutely,]]

and she is completely divorced,

or]]

perhaps

he said it with regard to labor,]]

meaning that the proceeds of her labor, which until now belonged to her husband, shall now belong to her, but he did not intend to divorce her from him completely?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

from this

as we learned

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

One may derive by means of a kal va-chomer that the expression “Behold, you belong to yourself” is wording that effects divorce.

And if a slave,

a Canaanite slave,

whose body is acquired by him,]]

as his body is owned 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 becomes free and acquires himself,

a woman, whose body he does not acquire,]]

as 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:

If he said to his slave

and wrote in his bill of emancipation:

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

Is this wording of a deed of emancipation or not?

Rav Ḥanin said to Rav Ashi—and some say]]

that it was

Rav Ḥanin of Meḥoza]]

who said

to Rav Ashi:

Come and hear

from this

as it was taught:

“One who sells his slave to a gentile]]

is penalized by the Sages, who require him to redeem the slave from the gentile; nevertheless, he does not again become his slave, but rather, after he redeems him from the gentile,

he goes free. And]]

although the slave becomes 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 become free without a bill of emancipation? It is only when

he did not write an ono for him]]

[a document; 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 bill of emancipation.

What is an ono,

what is the ono document?

Rav Sheshet said: It is that he wrote for him, “When you escape 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.

This proves that the wording “I have no dealings with you” constitutes wording of emancipation:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says

that one must write in the bill of divorce:

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

With regard to what do they disagree?]]

What is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis as to whether one must write “And this” in the bill of divorce?

The Rabbis hold that partial expressions

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

are considered partial expressions

as though he had 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

it is evident that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce,]]

since we see that the bill of divorce has emerged from her possession, which serves as proof that his intention was to divorce her with this bill.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that partial expressions that are not conclusive are not considered partial expressions,]]

so when one utters 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 when he writes “And this,”

as it is evident]]

that there is proof

that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce,]]

that he intends to divorce her with this bill.

But if he did not write for her “And this,” they say:]]

there is room for the error that

he divorced her verbally,]]

intending to divorce her through his statement when he says to her, “Behold, you are permitted to marry any man,”

and

what he gave her,

the document,]]

the bill of divorce, serves only as

mere evidence]]

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

To understand the following passage, we must first introduce the wording of the standard bill of divorce!

“I release you,]]

I release you to yourself,

you]]

are

so-and-so daughter of so-and-so, who were my wife from long ago,]]

who had been my wife for some time,

and now]]

and at this time

I release]]

I have released,

and abandon]]

and abandoned,

and divorce]]

and sent away

you]]

you,

so that you shall be]]

so that you shall be

authorized]]

authorized

and in control]]

and in control

of yourself,]]

of yourself,

to go]]

to go

and marry]]

and marry

whomever you wish,]]

with anyone you wish,

and no man may interfere with you]]

and no man is permitted to prevent you,

from this day]]

from this day

and forever.]]

and onward.

And this,]]

and this

which shall be for you from me,]]

shall be for you from me,

a scroll of divorce]]

a scroll of divorce,

and a letter of abandonment]]

and a letter of abandonment from me,

according to the law of Moses and Israel.

The Gemara now explains several laws concerning the precision required in writing a 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,

as it would imply “and din”]]

[with the vowel ḥiriq], in which case it would sound as though he said to her: “I divorce you only if I am obligated by law to divorce you; but if the law does not obligate me to divorce you, you are not divorced],

rather,]]

he must take care to write

“and this”]]

without a yod.

And

he must likewise take care

not to write “iggeret”]]

with a yod,

as it would imply “iggeret,”]]

in which case it would sound as though he were divorcing her with an “iggeret” [with a pataḥ under the resh], from a word meaning roof, whereas he must divorce her with a bill of divorce,

rather,]]

he must take care to write

“igeret.”

And

he must likewise take care

not to write “to go”]]

with a yod,

as it would imply]]

that it would then sound as though

for me]]

you shall

go]]

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

And

he must likewise take care

not to write “to mock you”]]

instead of “to go,”

as it would imply]]

that it would then sound

like mockery,]]

as though he came to ridicule her. To ensure that it does not appear as a ḥet, there must be a space between the leg of the hei and its roof.

And when he writes that he is giving her the bill of divorce

so that you shall be,]]

so that she may marry anyone

whom she wishes,]]

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

three]]

three yods. Likewise, when he writes

“whom she wishes,”]]

he must write it with

three yods,]]

because if he writes it with two yods,

as it would imply,]]

it will be understood in the plural

“you shall be and you shall wish,”]]

meaning that this bill of divorce permits all the women in the world to marry.

And

when he writes that he gives her a scroll of divorce and a letter of abandonment,

to lengthen it]]

he must lengthen

the vav of “divorce” and the vav of “abandonment,”]]

because if he does not lengthen the vav,

as it would imply,]]

it will be understood as though it says

“divorced and abandoned,”]]

in the plural, meaning that this document is for women in general and not for this woman.

And

when he writes for her, “And now I release and abandon you,”

he must lengthen the second vav of “and now”]]

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

as it would imply,]]

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

“and for nothing,”]]

meaning “for no purpose”—that he divorces her without a bill of severance.

And

he must likewise take care

not to write]]

in the bill of divorce

“to marry”]]

with an alef,

as it would imply]]

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

“she shall not marry,”]]

meaning that she is forbidden to marry, which contradicts the nature of a bill of divorce,

rather,]]

he must write

“to marry”]]

with a hei, meaning that she shall be permitted to marry whomever she wishes.

They raised a dilemma: Do we require “and this,”]]

is the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that “and this” be written in the bill of divorce,

or do we not require “and this,”]]

and is the halakha in accordance with the Rabbis, who do not require “and this” to be written?

Come and hear:

Rava instituted the following wording in bills of divorce,]]

as Rava instituted that scribes write in a bill of divorce:

“How so-and-so son of so-and-so]]

the name of the divorcing husband and his father,

released and divorced]]

and divorces

so-and-so, his wife,]]

so-and-so, who is his wife,

who was his wife from long ago,]]

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

from this day and forever.”]]

from this day onward.

The Gemara analyzes this:

But he did not say “and this,”]]

for “and this” is not mentioned among the instructions Rava gave the scribes, implying that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we refute this:

But according to your reasoning,]]

even according to your approach,

did he mention all of them?]]

Rava did not mention in his enactment the other expressions that must necessarily be written in a bill of divorce.

Rather,

it is certainly the case that although Rava did not mention in his enactment that the other expressions must be written, nevertheless it is certain that

we require]]

that they be written. Accordingly, although Rava did not mention that “and this” must be written,

here too, we require it]]

and it certainly must be written.

Rava needed to enact only those matters that contain a novel point:

For the fact that Rava enacted that one write

“from this day,”]]

this comes

to exclude]]

and remove

the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, 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”: Although it sounds as though the bill of divorce takes effect only after he dies, and it is impossible to give a bill of divorce after death, Rabbi Yosei nevertheless holds that it is unnecessary to write that the bill of divorce takes effect from today, since

the date of the document establishes its meaning]]

that his intention is to divorce her from today, with the divorce becoming final upon his death.