Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 85a

, both sides agree that [the Get is still] valid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT, and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] before the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with the Rabbis, or if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] after the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with both authorities. Raba, however, said that they [Rabbi and the Rabbis] disagree in the case where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part has been written, Rabbi holding that we disallow the insertion in this case in virtue of having disallowed it before the substantive part [has been written], while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow one in virtue of the other; but if [it is inserted] before the writing of the substantive part, both sides agree that [the Get is] invalid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT. and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], it is assuming it to be inserted after [the writing] of the substantive part, and it follows the Rabbis.

The father of R. Abin recited before R. Zera: 'If he wrote the Get with [the insertion of] a condition, the unanimous ruling is that it is invalid,' [He said to him:] The unanimous ruling is that it is invalid? [How can this be] seeing that there is a dispute on the subject? What you must say is, The unanimous ruling is that it is valid. And in what circumstances? If the words are inserted after the writing of the substantive part. Why did not R. Zera say to him, [Say,] This is invalid, [the ruling then being] according to Rabbi? — [R. Zera reasoned] that the tanna¹  had been taught to say 'The unanimous ruling is', and that he might confuse 'valid' and 'invalid', but that he would not confuse 'this is' with 'the unanimous ruling is'.²

MISHNAH. [IF HE SAID,] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN BUT MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY BROTHER AND YOUR BROTHER, A SLAVE. A HEATHEN, OR ANYONE TO WHOM SHE IS INCAPABLE OF BEING BETROTHED, THE GET IS VALID.³  [IF HE SAYS.] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANYONE BUT A HIGH PRIEST (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A WIDOW) OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A DIVORCEE OR A HALUZAH),⁴  AN ORDINARY PRIEST, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH),⁵  A LAY ISRAELITE, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS OF ISRAELITISH BIRTH). A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, OR ANYONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF BETROTHING HER ALBEIT IN TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW,⁶  THE GET IS INVALID.

GEMARA. The general statement in the first clause brings under the rule all other persons who become liable to kareth⁷  [by having intercourse with her]; the general statement in the second clause brings under the rule all other persons who are forbidden [to marry her] only in virtue of a negative command,⁸  (such as, for instance, an Ammonite, a Moabite,⁹  a Nathin, an Egyptian and an Edomite).¹⁰  Raba inquired of R. Nahman: [If he says, you may marry anyone] except [that you may not] be betrothed to a minor, what is the law?¹¹  Do we emphasise the fact that at the present at any rate he is not capable of betrothing her¹²  or rather the fact that he will one day be capable? — He replied: [We have a teaching:] 'A girl under age can be divorced [after her father's death] even though her betrothal was contracted by her father.'¹³  Now why should this be, seeing that we require that her separation should be on the same footing as her union?¹⁴  The reason must be, because she will one day be capable of betrothal; so here we say that he will one day be capable of betrothal.¹⁵

[Suppose he says, You may marry anyone] except those still to be born, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that as yet at any rate they are not born, or on the fact that one day they will be born? — He replied: We have the answer in our Mishnah: [IF HE SAID, ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN, [IT IS VALID]. Now if we suppose [that this constitutes a reservation in the Get], then [the excepting of] a slave and a heathen also [should constitute a reservation in the Get], since it is possible for them to become proselytes? — [To this Raba rejoined:] Those are not bound to become proselytes in the ordinary course of things, these will be born in the ordinary course of things.

[If he said she may marry anyone] except the husband of her sister, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that now at any rate she is not eligible for him, or rather perhaps on the fact that possibly her sister will die and she will become eligible for him? — He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN. Now [the excepting] of a slave and heathen also [should constitute a reservation] since they can become proselytes? — [He rejoined]: Conversion is not a usual occurrence, death is.

[If he said, you may marry] excepting you commit fornication, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that he did leave a reservation in the sphere of intercourse? — He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER. Now to what [does the exception apply]? Shall I say to marriage? But are his father and her father capable of marrying her? It must be then to fornication, and when he excepts his father and her father this is no reservation,¹⁶  which shows that when he excepts anyone else, it is counted as a reservation? — [He rejoined:] perhaps the exception refers after all to marriage, since he may transgress the law and marry her.

[If he says], Excepting unnatural intercourse, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he made no reservation in the sphere of natural intercourse, or on the fact that the text says, as with a woman?¹⁷  [If he says], Except [that I reserve to myself] the right of annulling your vows, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or rather perhaps on the text, her husband may establish it or her husband may make it void?¹⁸  [If he says], Except that you may not eat terumah,¹⁹  what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that it is written the purchase of his money [shall eat of it]?²⁰  Suppose he said, Excepting that I shall inherit you, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage or that the text says, to his kinsman and he shall inherit it?²¹  [If he says,] Except for your being betrothed by a document, what is the law? Do we say that it is possible for one to betroth her by a money present or by intercourse,²²  or rather perhaps do we go by the text and she shall depart and marry,²³  which indicates that all kinds of marrying are on the same footing? — These questions are left undecided.

MISHNAH. THE ESSENCE OF THE GET IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN.

1. The father of R. Abin.
2. Hence he emended the word 'invalid' into 'valid', but not 'the unanimous ruling is' into 'this is', although the latter in itself would have been preferable.
3. Because the expression 'you are permitted to any man' still covers all possible cases and there is no reservation.
4. V. Glos.
5. Fem. of Nathin. A descendant of the Gibeonites who were accepted into the community of Joshua, but who were forbidden to intermarry with the Israelites. V. Josh. X, and Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 340. n. 12.
6. [The act of betrothal, that is to say, is valid, though they are not allowed to marry. Whereas with those enumerated in the first part of the Mishnah the betrothal is of no effect and no divorce is necessary to separate them.]
7. I.e., those mentioned in Lev. XX. For kareth, v. Glos.
8. Which carries with it only flogging but no death penalty nor kareth.
9. V. Deut. XXIII, 4.
10. Ibid, 8. The words in brackets are omitted in some texts.
11. I.e., does this constitute a reservation invalidating the Get or not.
12. And therefore that it is no reservation.
13. I.e., even though her marriage was a binding one.
14. Lit., '[the rule of] she shall go forth and be'. And therefore only her father should have power to receive her Get for her.
15. And the Get is invalid, owing to the reservation it contains.
16. Since she is in any case forbidden to them.
17. Lev. XX, 13. The Hebrew is [H], lit., 'lyings', the plural form being taken to indicate both natural and unnatural intercourse.
18. Num. XXX, 13.
19. If she marries a priest. V. Glos.
20. Lev, XXII, 11. And since she may not eat of it she is not the 'purchase of his money', and therefore is not fully permitted to marry 'any man'.
21. Num. XXVII, 11. Since he is to inherit her, she thus remains in a sense his wife.
22. V. Kid. 2a.
23. Deut. XXIV, 2.

R. JUDAH SAYS: [HE MUST ADD,] AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE AND A BILL OF DISMISSAL. WHEREWITH YOU MAY GO AND MARRY ANY MAN THAT YOU PLEASE. THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF.

GEMARA. There is no question that if a man says to his wife, Behold you are hereby a free woman, his words are of no effect,¹  and if he says to his bondwoman, Behold you are hereby permitted to any man, his words are of no effect.²  If he said to his wife, Behold you belong to yourself, what are we to say? Does he mean, you belong to yourself entirely, or only as far as your work is concerned? — Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: Since we have learnt: THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Now seeing that a slave whose body belongs [to his master] becomes his own owner when he says to him, Behold you belong to yourself, how much more so with a wife whose body does not belong to him?

Rabina asked R. Ashi: If a man said to his slave, I have no concern with you, what [are we to say]? — R. Hanin said to R. Ashi, or, according to another report, R. Hanin of Huzna'ah³  said to R. Ashi: Come and hear, as it has been taught:⁴  If a man sells his slave to a heathen, he thereby becomes emancipated, but he requires a deed of emancipation from his first master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is the case only if he did not write out an oni for him, but if he wrote out an oni for him, this is his deed of emancipation. What is an oni? — R. Shesheth said: If he gave him a written statement saying. If you escape from him, I have no concern with you.⁵

RABBI JUDAH SAYS. [HE MUST ADD], AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE. What is the ground of the difference [between the Rabbis and R. Judah]? — The Rabbis held that an indication⁶  which is not definite can still count as an indication,⁷  and so though he did not insert the words 'and this', the circumstances show that he was divorcing her with this Get. R, Judah on the other hand held that an indication not definite does not count as an indication, and the reason why the Get is valid is because he has inserted the words 'and this', which show that he was divorcing her with this Get, but if he did not insert these words, people will say that he divorced her by word of mouth, and the document is merely a corroboration.

Abaye said: The one who writes out the Get should not spell [H] which might be read we-din [and it is just], but [H].⁸  He should not spell [H] which might be read igarath [a roof], but [H].⁹  He should not write [H]¹⁰  which might be read li-mehak [to me from this], nor should he spell [H]¹¹  which might be understood 'as a joke'. The words and [H] and [H]¹²  should have each three yods [at the end], as two might be read di-tehewjan¹³  [that they may be] and de-tezibjan¹³  [whom they may like]. The waw of the words [H]¹⁴  and [H]¹⁵  should be lengthened¹⁶  as otherwise the words might be read terikin [those who are divorced] and shebikin [those that are released].¹⁷  The waw of [H]¹⁸  should also be lengthened so as not to read [H] which means 'in vain'. He should not write [H] which might be read la-yithnesseba [she shall not be married], but [H].¹⁹

The question was raised: Are the words 'and this' required or not? — Come and hear: Raba laid down the formula of the Get thus: '[We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of So-and-so dismissed and divorced his wife from this day and for all time'. We see that he does not mention 'and this'. But if we are to go by this, we might ask, did he mention all the rest of the Get? Nevertheless we require the rest, and so we require [this also].

The words 'from this day' are to rule out the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.²⁰  The words 'for all time',

1. Because she is already free.
2. Because not having been emancipated as far as work is concerned, she cannot marry an Israelite.
3. [Or Hozae, the modern Khuzistan, S.W. Persia. V. Kid. 6b.]
4. Supra 43b, q.v.
5. Which shows that these words confer emancipation.
6. Heb. 'yadayim', 'hands'.
7. Lit., 'hands which do not prove are still counted hands', v. Kid. 5b.
8. We-den, 'and this'.
9. Iggereth, 'a letter'.
10. In place of li-mehak [H] 'to go'. [In other words, Abaye rules out the matres lectionis in these three words, in view of the ambiguity they may give rise to.]
11. [The [H] and [H] are interchangeable letters in Semitic languages.]
12. Di-tehewjen, di-tezbijen, 'that you may marry', 'whom you please'.
13. Third pers. plur. fem.
14. Terukin, 'release',
15. Shebukin, 'divorce',
16. So as not to look like a yod.
17. I.e., not an abstract noun but a participle passive.
18. Kedu, 'accordingly'.
19. Le-hithnasseba, 'to be married',
20. Supra 72a.