In this daf, we continue our sweet and deep learning of the halachos of writing a get. The Gemara first clarifies why a get written on a cow's horn requires the husband to give her the entire cow, explaining that the Torah requires a document that is ready to be given immediately after writing, without needing a major act of cutting first. We then delve into a beautiful machlokes between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis regarding whether a get can be written on a living creature or on food, analyzing how they darshen the word "sefer" in the pasuk.
We then move on to a new Mishna that teaches us about the status of writing a get on something attached to the ground, such as a leaf or a tree. The Mishna also introduces a machlokes between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis regarding writing a get on materials where the writing could potentially be forged, such as erased paper or unfinished leather.
לָא אֶפְשָׁר לְמִקְצְיַיהּ,
In the case of the slave's hand, it is not possible to cut it off, as it is forbidden to mutilate a slave, so he must give her the entire slave. But in the case of the קֶרֶן שֶׁל פָּרָה – the horn of a cow,
לִיקְצְיַיהּ וְלִיתְּבַהּ לָהּ!
let him cut it off and give it to her! Why does the Mishnah say he must give her the entire cow?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכָתַב״ – ״וְנָתַן לַהּ״,
The Gemara answers: The verse states: "And he shall write" and then "and give it in her hand," which teaches that the document must be written on מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא כְּתִיבָה וּנְתִינָה; – something which is not lacking any action except writing and giving;
יָצָא זֶה – שֶׁמְחוּסָּר כְּתִיבָה, קְצִיצָה וּנְתִינָה.
this case of the cow's horn is excluded, which is lacking writing, cutting, and giving, and therefore the horn alone cannot serve as the get unless he gives her the entire cow.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳:
We learned in the Mishnah: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says etc. that a get may not be written on anything living, nor on food.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי?
The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?
דְּתַנְיָא: ״סֵפֶר״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר?
As it is taught in a Braisa: The Torah says "sefer" (scroll). From this I have only a literal scroll; from where do we derive to include all other things as valid writing materials?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
The verse teaches: "And he shall write for her" – implying he may write on any material whatsoever.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״סֵפֶר״?
If so, what is the meaning when the verse teaches "sefer"?
מָה סֵפֶר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר – שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל.
Just as a scroll is something that does not have a spirit of life, and is not food; so too, any thing used for a get must be that which does not have a spirit of life and is not food.
וְרַבָּנַן – אִי כְּתִיב ״בְּסֵפֶר״, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ; הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סֵפֶר״ – לִסְפִירַת דְּבָרִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
And the Rabbis, how do they respond? They argue: If it were written "b'sefer" (in a scroll), it would be as you said, referring to the material. Now that it is written "sefer", it does not refer to the material, but it comes for the telling of matters, meaning a written account of divorce.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״וְכָתַב״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ?
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase "And he shall write"?
מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ ״בִּכְתִיבָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, וְאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּכֶסֶף״ –
They require it to teach: With writing she is divorced, and she is not divorced with money.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, אַקֵּישׁ יְצִיאָה לַהֲוָיָיהּ: מָה הֲוָיָיה בְּכֶסֶף, אַף יְצִיאָה נָמֵי בְּכֶסֶף; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
For it might enter your mind to say, let us compare leaving marriage to entering marriage: just as entering marriage (betrothal) can be done with money, so too leaving marriage (divorce) also can be done with money; therefore it teaches us that it must be written.
וְאִידַּךְ – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״סֵּפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ – סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ.
And the other Tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this? He derives it from "a scroll of severance" – meaning a scroll (a written document) severs her, and nothing else (such as money) severs her.
וְאִידָּךְ – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ״, כִּדְתַנְיָא:
And the other, the Rabbis, what do they do with "severance"? They require it to teach that it must be a matter that completely severs between him and her, as it is taught in a Braisa:
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן״; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ״; ״לְעוֹלָם״ – אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
If a husband says, "This is your get on condition that you do not drink wine," or "on condition that you do not go to your father's house" and this condition is "forever" – this is not severance, and the get is invalid because she remains permanently bound by his restriction.
״עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ – הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
But if he says the condition is only "until thirty days," then this is severance, and the get is valid.
וְאִידָּךְ – מִ״כָּרֵת–כְּרִיתוּת״.
And the other Tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this rule of complete severance? He derives it from the extra letters in the change from "karet" to "keritut."
וְאִידַּךְ – ״כָּרֵת–כְּרִיתוּת״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
And the other, the Rabbis, do not expound the difference between "karet" and "keritut."
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע.
MISHNAH: One may not write a get on something attached to the ground.
כְּתָבוֹ בִּמְחוּבָּר, תְּלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.
If he wrote it on something attached, and then detached it, and signed it, and gave it to her – it is valid.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ.
Rabbi Yehuda deems it invalid, until both its writing and its signing are in a detached state.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל הַנְּיָיר הַמָּחוּק וְלֹא עַל הַדִּיפְתְּרָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּיף.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: One may not write a get neither on erased paper nor on diftera (unfinished leather), because it can be forged.
וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
And the Sages validate a get written on these.
גְּמָ׳ כְּתָבוֹ עַל הַמְחוּבָּר?! וְהָאָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא ״אֵין כּוֹתְבִין״!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How can the Mishnah say, if he wrote it on the attached and then detached it, it is valid? But didn't you say in the first clause: "One may not write" on the attached?!
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: And this is valid only where he left over the place of the essential part of the get (the names and date) to be written after detaching it.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.
And so Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: And this is where he left over the place of the essential part.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף –
And so Rabba bar bar Chana said that Rabbi Yochanan said: And this is where he left over the place of the essential part –
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.
and this explanation is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who said: The witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, not the signing witnesses.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין טוֹפֶס שֶׁמָּא יִכְתּוֹב תּוֹרֶף.
And this is what the Mishnah is saying: One may not write even the standard text (the tofes) on the attached, as a Rabbinic decree lest he write the essential part (the toref) on the attached.
כְּתָבוֹ לַטּוֹפֶס וּתְלָשׁוֹ, כְּתָבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.
But post facto, if he wrote the standard text on the attached and detached it, and then wrote the essential part on the detached and gave it to her – it is valid.
וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״חָתְמוּ״ שָׁנִינוּ;
And Reish Lakish said: We learned in the Mishnah that the word "signed" is the key, "and they signed it" is what we learned;
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.
and this is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who said: The witnesses of signing effect the divorce.
וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין תּוֹרֶף, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְתּוֹם.
And this is what the Mishnah is saying: One may not write the essential part on the attached, as a Rabbinic decree lest he sign it while it is still attached.
כְּתָבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף, תְּלָשׁוֹ, חֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.
But post facto, if he wrote the essential part on the attached, detached it, signed it, and gave it to her – it is valid.
כְּתָבוֹ עַל חֶרֶס שֶׁל עָצִיץ נָקוּב – כָּשֵׁר, דְּשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ.
If he wrote it on a shard of a perforated flowerpot – it is valid, because he can take it and give it to her without needing to detach anything from the ground.
על עָלֶה שֶׁל עָצִיץ נָקוּב;
If he wrote it on a leaf of a perforated flowerpot, which is halachically considered attached to the ground:
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, וְרָבָא אָמַר: פָּסוּל.
Abaye said: It is valid, and Rava said: It is invalid.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר כָּשֵׁר –
Abaye said it is valid because...
The Gemara begins by explaining that a get cannot be written on something that requires cutting before it can be given, as the Torah requires the document to be ready for giving immediately after writing. We then explore the source for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili's view that a get cannot be written on living things or food, contrasted with the Rabbis who learn that "sefer" refers to the telling of the story (sefirat devarim) rather than the material itself. The Rabbis use the pesukim to teach that divorce must be done through writing rather than money, and that it must represent a complete severance (keritut) without permanent conditions. Finally, the new Mishna discusses the invalidity of writing a get on something attached to the ground, and the dispute regarding writing on materials susceptible to forgery.
In our sugya, the Rabbis teach us a profound principle about the very nature of a get. The Torah calls it a "sefer keritut", a scroll of severance. The Gemara explains that this means the divorce must be absolute, with no lingering strings attached. If a husband gives a get but places a permanent condition on his wife, such as forbidding her from ever visiting her father's house, the divorce is completely invalid. For a separation to be real, it cannot be partial; it must be a total, clean break.
This contains a deep lesson for our own lives and our avodah. How often do we try to make a "break" from a bad habit, a negative influence, or a middah we know is harming our yiras Shamayim, yet we leave a small condition behind? We tell ourselves we are letting go of the yetzer hara, but we keep one foot in the door, holding onto a tiny piece of the old behavior "just in case."
True growth and teshuvah require "keritut", a complete and honest severance. When we decide to move away from something that distances us from the Aibershter, we must do so without lingering conditions or half-measures. A partial break is not a break at all; it keeps us spiritually bound to the very things we are trying to leave behind.
Today, identify one negative habit or distraction you have been trying to move away from, and make a clean, absolute break from it for just one day, with no lingering conditions or compromises.