Gittin 39

אי משום כריתות דאית בה הא בעינא (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה לשמה וליכא

water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At that time all parchment scrolls of the Law were treated in this way. Hence there was no proper writing from the outset, and consequently no Get. ');">¹</span>

וכי תימא ליחוש דילמא אקדים ויהב ליה זוזא לספרא מעיקרא הא בעינן שינה שמו ושמה שם עירו ושם עירה וליכא

Shall we say that the scroll is itself a Get because of the portion it contains relating to 'cutting off'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">²</span>

ורב יוסף מאי קמ"ל שאין מי מילין על גבי מי מילין

We require that it should be written for that woman specifically,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he shall write for her' (which means) 'in her name'. ');">³</span>

אמר רב חסדא גט שכתבו שלא לשמה והעביר עליו קולמוס לשמה באנו למחלוקת רבי יהודה ורבנן

which is not here the case. If you should plead that possibly he gave, beforehand, a fee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a zuz'. ');">⁴</span>

דתניא הרי שהיה צריך לכתוב את השם ונתכוין לכתוב יהודה וטעה ולא הטיל בו דלת מעביר עליו קולמוס ומקדשו דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אין השם מן המובחר

to the scribe [to write the passage in the scroll specifically for her], this also is unavailing, since we require [the insertion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [his rendering omits the word [H] which is inserted in the text only inadvertently as a quotation from infra 80a; v. Rashi. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם דבעינא (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וליכא אבל הכא לא

of] his name and her name, the name of his town and the name of her town, which we do not [find here]. What does [then] R. Joseph teach us here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that all this is obvious. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב חסדא יכילנא למיפסלינהו לכולי גיטי דעלמא אמר לי' רבא מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב (דברים כד, ג) וכתב והכא איהי קא כתבה ליה ודילמא אקנויי אקנו ליה רבנן

— That gall-nut water makes no writing on [a sheet treated with] gall-nut water.

ואלא משום דכתיב ונתן והכא לא יהיב לה מידי דלמא נתינת גט היא תדע דשלחו מתם כתבו על איסורי הנאה כשר:

R. Hisda said: If a Get was written not expressly for a certain woman, and the writing was then gone over with a pen with specific reference to that woman, the same difference of opinion may arise as we find between R. Judah and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: If a scribe [copying a scroll of the Law] had to write in a certain place the Tetragrammaton<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The four letters Yod, He, Waw, He. ');">⁷</span>

גופא שלחו מתם כתבו על איסורי הנאה כשר אמר רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא על העלה של זית דילמא שאני עלה של זית דחזי לאיצטרופי

and intended to write instead the name Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The five letters Yod, He, Daleth, Waw, He. ');">⁸</span>

תניא רבי אומר כתבו על איסורי הנאה כשר נפק לוי דרשה משמיה דרבי ולא קלסוה משמיה דרבים וקלסוה אלמא הלכתא כותיה

and by mistake left out the letter daleth [thus actually writing the Tetragrammaton], he may go over the letters with his pen and so sanctify the Name. This is the opinion of R. Judah, but the Sages say that such a Name is not of the choicest. Said R. Aha b. Jacob: The analogy is not altogether sound; for perhaps the Rabbis ruled thus in regard to the Tetragrammaton on account of the maxim indicated in the words, This is my God and I will beautify him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XV, 2. The words are expounded to signify. 'Beautify thyself before Him in the performance of religious duties'. ');">⁹</span>

תנו רבנן וכתב ולא חקק למימרא דחקיקה לאו כתיבה היא ורמינהו עבד שיצא בכתב שעל גבי טבלא ופינקס יצא לחירות אבל לא בכתב שעל גבי כיפא ואנדוכתרי

but here they would not [object]. R. Hisda said: I am able to invalidate all the bills of divorce ever written. Said Raba to him: How so? Is it because the Scripture says, And he shall write,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר עולא אמר רבי אלעזר לא קשיא הא דחק תוכות הא דחק יריכות

and in this case it is she who writes for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By paying the scribe's fee, which she was required to do according to the Rabbinical rule, v. B.B. 168a. ');">¹¹</span>

ותוכות לא ורמינהו לא היה כתבו שוקע אלא בולט כדינרי זהב והא דינרי זהב תוכות הן

Perhaps the Rabbis declare him to be the owner [of the money which she gives to the scribe].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the principle. 'The Beth din has power to expropriate'. V. infra 36b. ');">¹²</span>

כדינרי זהב ולא כדינרי זהב כדינרי זהב דבולט ולא כדינרי זהב דאילו התם תוכות הכא יריכות

Is it because it is written, And he shall give,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי רושמא מיחרץ חריץ או כנופי מכניף אמר ליה מיחרץ חריץ

and here he does not give her anything [of any value]? Perhaps the delivery of the Get is referred to. That this is so is proved by the instruction sent from Eretz Israel: 'If the Get was written on something from which it is forbidden to derive any benefit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. a leaf of a tree of 'orlah (v. Glos.). Such things had naturally no monetary value. ');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה לא היה כתבו שוקע אלא בולט כדינרי זהב ואי סלקא דעתך מיחרץ חריץ

it is still valid.' The text above [stated:] 'The instruction was sent from Eretz Israel: If the Get is written on something from which it is forbidden to derive a benefit, it is still valid'. R. Ashi said: We have also learned [to the same effect]: [A Get may be written] ON AN OLIVE LEAF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is also worthless. ');">¹⁵</span> But perhaps an olive leaf is different because [although worth nothing in itself] it may yet be combined [with other things to enhance the value of the whole]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a pile of olive leaves may be bought for lying on or for feeding cattle. The Mishnah affords then no support to the message from Eretz Israel. ');">¹⁶</span> It has been taught: Rabbi said that if the Get is written on something from which it is forbidden to derive a benefit, it is still valid. Levi went about stating this ruling in the name of Rabbi, and it was not approved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was not praised'. ');">¹⁷</span> He then stated it in the name of the main body of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of many'. ');">¹⁸</span> and it was approved. From this we may conclude that the law follows his ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when it was not approved at first, Levi took the trouble to obtain additional authority. ');">¹⁹</span> Our Rabbis have taught: '[The Scripture says] And he shall write ["the writ of divorce"], which implies that he is not to grave it.' From this we would conclude that graving is not counted as writing. This, however, seems to be in contradiction with the following: A slave who produces a deed engraved on a tablet or a board is legally emancipated, but not if the writing is woven into a woman's headband or a piece of embroidery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. Jastrow, however, (s.v. [H]) translates, 'a slave does not go free in virtue of wearing a freedman's cap or of a vindicto (manumission by declaration before a court).' ');">²⁰</span> — Said 'Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar: There is no contradiction. Graving is invalid if the letters are in relief,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he carved out the interior (of the plate)'. ');">²¹</span> but valid if they are hollowed out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he carved out the thighs (of the letters)'. ');">²²</span> [You say that if the letters are] in relief it is not [valid]. Does not this contradict the following? 'The writing [on the High priest's plate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XXVIII, 36. ');">²³</span> was not sunk in but projected like that on gold coins.' And is not [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> in relief? — [It was] like [the inscription on] gold <i>denarii</i> and yet not like it. [It was] like it in the fact that it projected, but it was unlike it because there [in gold <i>denarii</i> the metal is hollowed] round the letters,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the interior'. ');">²⁴</span> but here [in the High Priest's plate] the letters themselves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the thighs'. They were pressed forward from the back and so projected in front. ');">²⁵</span> were hollowed out. Rabina inquired of R. Ashi: Does a stamp scrape out or does it force together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it scrapes out the metal round the letters, the use of it is not writing; but it is if the letters are formed by compression. ');">²⁶</span> — He replied: It makes a depression. [Rabina] thereupon raised the following objection: [It has been taught] 'The writing [on the High Priest's plate] was not sunk in but was in relief, like the [inscription on] gold denarii'. Now if a stamp makes a depression round the letters,