Gittin 42

Chapter 42

א לא אפשר למקצייה אלא קרן של פרה ליקצייה וליתביה לה

1 , because it is not possible to cut off the hand [and give it to her]. But where [it is written] on the horn of an ox [why need the ox be given to her]? Let the husband cut it off and give it to her? — Scripture says, He shall write and give to her.1

ב אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) וכתב ונתן לה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא כתיבה ונתינה יצא זה שמחוסר כתיבה קציצה ונתינה:

2 [This means that the Get must be on something] which requires only to be written on and to be given [to make it effective]: it excludes [something like] this which requires to be written on, to be cut off, and to be given [before it can become effective].

ג רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכו': מ"ט דרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא ספר אין לי אלא ספר מנין לרבות כל דבר ת"ל וכתב לה מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל ספר מה ספר דבר שאין בו רוח חיים ואינו אוכל אף כל דבר שאין בו רוח חיים ואינו אוכל

3 R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS etc. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — As it has been taught: [From the word] sefer2

ד ורבנן אי כתיב בספר כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב ספר לספירת דברים הוא דאתא

4 I understand [that the husband must give the wife] a 'book'.3

ה ורבנן האי וכתב מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתגרשת בכסף ס"ד אמינא אקיש יציאה להויה מה הוייה בכסף אף יציאה נמי בכסף קמ"ל

5 How do I know that any thing will serve the purpose? Because it says, 'and he write her', that is to say, any form of written document — If so why does it specify 'book'? To show that, just as a 'book' is not animate and does not eat, so the document used for the Get must be inanimate and not a thing which eats. What do the Rabbis [who allow this say to this]? — [They can reply:] If the text had written be sefer ['in a book'], your deduction would be correct, but as it writes sefer it refers only to the record [sefirath,]4

ו ואידך נפקא ליה (דברים כד, א) מספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה

6 of the circumstances. What do the Rabbis make of the word we-kathab ['and he shall write']?5

ז ואידך מיבעי ליה דבר הכורת בינו לבינה כדתניא הרי זה גיטיך על מנת שלא תשתי יין על מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם אין זה כריתות עד שלשים יום הרי זה כריתות

7 — They require it to [deduce therefrom the rule that a woman] is divorced by a written document and not by a money gift. For you might think that her separation from her husband is to be effected in the same way as her union with him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XXIV, 2, the two words denoting separation and union, [H] lit., 'she shall deport' and 'she shall be (another man's wife) occur in close juxtaposition, hence the suggested comparison. ');">6

ח ואידך מכרת כריתות

8 just as the union was effected by a money payment,7

ט ואידך כרת כריתות לא דרשי:

9 so also the separation. Now I know [that this is not so]. From whence then does R. Jose derive this lesson?8

י <big>מתני׳</big> אין כותבין במחובר לקרקע כתבו במחובר תלשו וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר רבי יהודה פוסל עד שתהא כתיבתו וחתימתו בתלוש

10 — From the words 'a writ of cutting off': a written [document] effects the 'cutting' [separation] and not anything else. What then do the Rabbis make of these words?8

יא ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין כותבין לא על הנייר המחוק ולא על הדיפתרא מפני שהוא יכול להזדייף וחכמים מכשירין:

11 — They deduce from them that [for a Get] we require something which genuinely cuts off the husband from the wife, as it has been taught: '[If a man says to his wife], Here is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, that you never go to your father's house, this is no "cutting off".9

יב <big>גמ׳</big> כתבו על המחובר והאמרת רישא אין כותבין אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל והוא ששייר מקום התורף

12 But if he says, on condition that you do not do so for thirty days, this is "cutting off".' Whence does R. Jose derive this lesson?8

יג וכן אמר ר' אלעזר א"ר אושעיא והוא ששייר מקום התורף וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן והוא ששייר מקום התורף ור' אלעזר היא דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי

13 — From [the fact that the text uses the word] kerithuth when it might use the simpler form kareth.10

יד וה"ק אין כותבין טופס שמא יכתוב תורף כתבו לטופס ותלשו כתבו לתורף ונתנו לה כשר

14 What do the Rabbis make of this?8

טו וריש לקיש אמר חתמו שנינו ורבי מאיר היא דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי

15 — They do not stress the difference between kerithuth and kareth.

טז והכי קאמר אין כותבין תורף גזירה שמא יחתום כתבו לתורף תלשו חתמו ונתנו לה כשר

16 MISHNAH. [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL AND THEN DETACHED AND SIGNED AND GIVEN TO THE WIFE, IT IS VALID. R. JUDAH DECLARES IT INVALID UNLESS IT IS BOTH WRITTEN AND SIGNED ON SOMETHING NOT ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS THAT [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON A SHEET FROM WHICH WRITING HAS BEEN ERASED11

יז כתבו על חרס של עציץ נקוב כשר דשקיל ליה ויהיב ליה ניהלה על עלה של עציץ נקוב אביי אמר כשר ורבא אמר פסול אביי אמר כשר

17 NOR ON DIFTERA,12 BECAUSE WRITING ON IT CAN BE ALTERED [WITHOUT BEING NOTICEABLE]. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DECLARE SUCH A GET VALID. GEMARA. IF IT IS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. Does not the Mishnah say just before this that it must not be so written? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It may be so written if a place is left blank for the substantive part.13 The same statement was made by R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshiah: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. The same statement was also made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. And [our Mishnah] follows R. Eleazar, who says that it is the witnesses to delivery who [make the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The formal14 part [of the Get] must not be written [on something attached to the soil] lest one should come to write thereon the substantive part also. If, however, the formal part was written [on something still attached to the soil] and then detached and the substantive part was then filled in and [the Get] given to her, it is valid.' Resh Lakish, however, said: Our Mishnah says distinctly, AND SIGNED'. [This shows that] it follows the view of R. Meir who said that the signatures of the witnesses make [the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The substantive part must not be written [on something still attached to the soil] for fear lest the signatures should also be affixed to it [while in that state]. If, however, the substantive part was so written, and the Get was then detached and signed and given to her, it is valid.' If it is written on the surface of an earthenware flowerpot with a hole at the bottom15 it is valid, because he can take the pot and give it to her.16 If it is written on a leaf inside a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, Abaye says it is valid and Raba says it is not valid. Abaye says it is valid

Previous Chapter Next Chapter