In this segment of our learning on Daf 20a, we dive into the essential halachic requirements of writing a get (bill of divorce). The Gemara first addresses whether a Torah scroll could ever inadvertently act as a get, leading us into a deep discussion on the absolute necessity of writing a get lishmah—specifically for the sake of the husband and wife. We also explore the fascinating halachic question of writing over existing letters with a reed pen to correct a lack of proper intent, drawing a beautiful parallel to a scribe who mistakenly wrote the Shem Hashem without the proper kavanah (sanctified intent) in a Sefer Torah.
Additionally, the Gemara brings us to a famous and stirring statement of Rav Chisda, who suggests he could theoretically invalidate all the gittin in the world. This prompts a vital discussion regarding who must pay the scribe for the writing of the get, how the husband must legally own the parchment, and whether the material upon which the get is written must possess any actual monetary value.
אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת דְּאִית בַּהּ –
If you say there is a concern because of the verses of severance that are in it, i.e., in the Torah scroll, which could theoretically serve as a get,
הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ, וְלֵיכָּא.
behold, we require that which is written, "And he shall write for her," which teaches that the writing must be done for her sake, and here that is lacking, since a Torah scroll is written for the sake of the mitzvah, not for this specific woman.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אַקְדֵּים וִיהַב לֵיהּ זוּזָא לְסָפְרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא;
And if you would say that we should apprehend that perhaps he went ahead and gave a zuz to the scribe at the outset, instructing him to write those specific verses of divorce for his wife's sake,
הָא בָּעֵינַן ״שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ״, וְלֵיכָּא.
behold, we require the specific details of the husband and wife, and the Mishnah states that if the scribe changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, the get is invalid; thus, these details must be written, and they are lacking in the standard text of the Torah.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
And if so, what is Rav Yosef teaching us by saying that a Torah scroll cannot be used as a get?
שֶׁאֵין מֵי מֵילִין עַל גַּבֵּי מֵי מֵילִין.
He teaches us that gall water writing is not permanent when written on top of gall water writing; thus, we do not fear that a get was written in gall water on top of the Torah scroll's text.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס לִשְׁמָהּ, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
Rav Chisda said: In the case of a get which a scribe wrote not for her sake, and then he passed a quill over it writing the letters a second time for her sake, we have arrived at the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding writing over writing.
דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִכְתּוֹב ״יְהוּדָה״ וְטָעָה וְלֹא הֵטִיל בּוֹ דָּלֶת,
As it is taught in a braisa: If a scribe needed to write the Name of Hashem, and he intended to write "Yehuda" and erred and did not place in it the letter dalet, thereby writing the letters of the Divine Name but without the proper sanctified intent,
מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
he may pass a quill over it and thereby sanctify it with the proper intent; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַשֵּׁם מִן הַמּוּבְחָר.
And the Sages say: Writing over writing in this manner is not the optimal way to write the Name, and it is invalid.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא;
Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: Perhaps it is not so that this is the same dispute,
עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, דְּבָעֵינָא זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ, וְלֵיכָּא;
for the Rabbis only say there, regarding a Sefer Torah, that it is invalid because we require the fulfillment of the verse, "This is my G-d and I will glorify Him," and writing over writing is lacking beauty;
אֲבָל הָכָא לָא.
but here, regarding a get, where there is no requirement of "and I will glorify Him," no, they would not invalidate it.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: יָכֵילְנָא לְמִיפְסְלִינְהוּ (לְכוּלֵּי) [לְכוּלְּהוּ] גִּיטֵּי דְּעָלְמָא.
Rav Chisda said: I am able to invalidate all the gittin in the world based on strict scriptural requirements.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא?
Rava said to him: What is the reason you say this?
אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״וְכָתַב״, וְהָכָא אִיהִי קָא כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ;
If we say it is because it is written, "And he shall write," and here, in most cases, she writes it by paying the scribe's fee,
וְדִילְמָא אַקְנוֹיֵי אַקְנוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן?
but perhaps the Rabbis transferred ownership of the get to him, making it as if he paid for it?
וְאֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן״, וְהָכָא לָא יָהֵיב לַהּ מִידֵּי?!
But rather, is it because it is written, "And he shall give," and here he does not give her anything of monetary value, since the paper belongs to her?
דִּלְמָא נְתִינַת גֵּט הִיא!
Perhaps the mere giving of the get is the "giving" required, regardless of its monetary value!
תֵּדַע, דִּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר.
Know that this is so, as they sent from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If he wrote it on items from which benefit is forbidden, which have no monetary value, it is valid.
גּוּפָא – שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara analyzes the text itself: They sent from there: If he wrote it on items from which benefit is forbidden, it is valid.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״עַל הֶעָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת״!
Rav Ashi said: We also have learned this in our Mishnah: A get may be written "on an olive leaf," which has no real value!
דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי עָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת, דַּחֲזֵי לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps an olive leaf is different, because it is fit to be combined with other leaves to have monetary value, whereas forbidden items have no value even in large quantities.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר.
It is taught in a braisa: Rabbi says: If he wrote it on items from which benefit is forbidden, it is valid.
נְפַק לֵוִי, דַּרְשַׁהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְלָא קַלְּסוּהּ.
Levi went out and expounded it in the name of Rabbi, and they did not praise him, because they thought it was only an individual opinion.
מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּים, וְקַלְּסוּהּ.
He then expounded it in the name of the public as an anonymous halacha, and they praised him.
אַלְמָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.
Consequently, the halacha is like him, and it is the accepted ruling.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכָתַב״ – וְלֹא חָקַק.
The Rabbis taught in a braisa: The verse says, "And he shall write," which implies and not chisel.
לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲקִיקָה לָאו כְּתִיבָה הִיא?!
Is this to say that chiseling is not considered writing?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: עֶבֶד שֶׁיָּצָא בִּכְתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא, וּפִינְקָס, יָצָא לְחֵירוּת.
And they raised a contradiction from a braisa: A slave who went free through a document that was chiseled upon a tablet or a writing tablet, goes free!
אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפָּא וְאַנְדּוּכְתַּרִי!
But not with writing that is upon a cap or embroidery, which is not permanent.
אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּחַק תּוֹכוֹת, הָא דְּחַק יְרֵיכוֹת.
Ulla said that Rabbi Eleazar said: This is not difficult; this case of invalidity is where he hollowed out the insides of the letters, and this case of validity is where he hollowed out the borders, leaving the letters raised.
וְתוֹכוֹת – לָא?!
And is hollowing out the insides not valid?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: לֹא הָיָה כְּתָבוֹ שׁוֹקֵעַ, אֶלָּא בּוֹלֵט – כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב.
And they raised a contradiction from a braisa regarding the Tzitz: Its writing was not sunken, but rather raised, like gold dinars.
וְהָא דִּינְרֵי זָהָב תּוֹכוֹת הֵן!
But behold, gold dinars are made by hollowing out the insides of the mold, which makes the letters on the coin stand out!
כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב, וְלֹא כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב.
The Gemara answers: It was like gold dinars, and yet not like gold dinars.
כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב – דְּבוֹלֵט; וְלֹא כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב – דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם תּוֹכוֹת, הָכָא יְרֵיכוֹת.
Like gold dinars in that it was raised; and not like gold dinars, for whereas there on the coin it is formed by hollowing out the insides, here on the Tzitz it was formed by hollowing out the borders.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רוּשְׁמָא – מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ, אוֹ כַּנּוֹפֵי מְכַנֵּיף?
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Regarding the writing on the Tzitz, is the impression made by engraving into the metal, or by pushing the metal from behind to make it protrude?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ.
He said to him: It is made by engraving.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: לֹא הָיָה כְּתָבוֹ שׁוֹקֵעַ, אֶלָּא בּוֹלֵט כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב.
He objected to him from the braisa: Its writing was not sunken, but rather raised like gold dinars.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ –
And if it enters your mind that it was made by engraving, how could it be raised?
The Gemara on Daf 20a establishes that a Torah scroll cannot serve as a get because it lacks both the specific names of the couple and the necessary lishmah (intent). Through a comparison to the laws of writing a Sefer Torah, the Sages debate whether tracing over existing letters with ink (k'sav al gabai k'sav) can validate a get that was originally written without the proper intent. Finally, the Gemara clarifies that while a get must be legally owned by the husband at the time of delivery, the physical material itself does not need to hold any monetary value; hence, a get written on an olive leaf or even on materials from which benefit is forbidden (issurei hana'ah) remains completely kosher and valid.
In our sugya, the Gemara discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding a scribe who accidentally wrote the Name of Hashem without the proper holy intention (lishmah). Rabbi Yehuda holds that the scribe can simply trace over the letters with a pen to sanctify them, while the Rabbis hold that this is not the optimal way to write the holy Name. Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains that the Rabbis' concern is rooted in the pasuk, "This is my God, and I will glorify Him" (Ze Eli v'Anvehu). A mitzvah, especially the writing of Hashem's Name, must be beautiful and pristine, not a patched-up correction.
This teaches us a profound lesson about our daily avodah. How often do we approach our mitzvos or our tefillah with a "traced-over" attitude? We might rush through a berachah or perform a mitzvah mechanically, thinking, "Well, at least I got it done, I can just patch up my lack of focus later." But the Torah demands more from us. "Ze Eli v'Anvehu" means we must strive to make our connection to Hashem beautiful from the very first stroke. We should not rely on spiritual shortcuts or half-hearted efforts, but rather invest our heart, mind, and true intention into the mitzvah from the very beginning.
Today, before you say a berachah or perform a mitzvah, pause for three seconds to focus your mind. Do not just "trace over" the action out of habit; make it beautiful, fresh, and full of genuine intention for the sake of Hashem.