רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר וְדֵן דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכֹל גְּבַר דִּיתִצְבִּיִּין גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר הֲרֵי אַתְּ (בַּת) [בֶּן] חוֹרִין הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ Rabbi Yehuda says that there is also another essential sentence: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish. And the basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own.
גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא אָמַר לָהּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְּלוּם אָמַר לָהּ לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְּלוּם GEMARA: It is obvious that if one stated in a bill of divorce for his wife: You are hereby a free woman, he has stated nothing, as that is not a statement of divorce. Similarly, if one stated in a bill of manumission for his maidservant: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, he has stated nothing, as that is not a statement of manumission.
אָמַר לָהּ לְאִשָּׁה הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמֵךְ מַהוּ לִגְמָרֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ אוֹ לִמְלָאכָה קָאָמַר לַהּ The Gemara asks: If he stated in a bill of divorce for his wife: You are hereby your own, what is the halakha? Is he saying to her: You are entirely your own, meaning that she has full control over her status and may marry another man? Or is he saying to her: You are your own with regard to work, meaning that she may keep the revenue from her work? If so, this is not a statement of divorce.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי תָּא שְׁמַע דִּתְנַן גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר הֲרֵי אַתְּ (בַּת) [בֶּן] חוֹרִין הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ וּמָה עַבְדָּא דִּקְנִי לֵיהּ גּוּפֵיהּ כִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךָ קְנִי גּוּפֵיהּ אִשָּׁה דְּלָא קְנִי גּוּפַהּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a solution that we learned in the mishna: The basic element of a bill of manumission is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. And just as with regard to a slave, whose body is acquired by the master, if the master states in a bill of manumission for the slave: You are hereby your own, the slave acquires his body, all the more so with regard to a wife, whose body is not acquired by her husband, is it not clear that by his writing in a bill of divorce: You are hereby your own, she is completely released from their marriage?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר לוֹ לְעַבְדּוֹ אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּךְ מַהוּ Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If he stated in a bill of manumission for his slave: I have no business with you, what is the halakha? Is this a valid statement of manumission?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנִין לְרַב אָשֵׁי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב חָנִין מָחוֹזְנָאָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי תָּא שְׁמַע דְּתַנְיָא הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי יָצָא לְחֵירוּת וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ אֲבָל כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ זֶהוּ שִׁחְרוּרוֹ Rav Ḥanin said to Rav Ashi, and some say that it was Rav Ḥanin from Meḥoza who said this to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a solution that we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his first master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is when the master did not write his document for the slave when he sold him; but if he wrote his document for him, that is the slave’s bill of manumission.
מַאי אוֹנוֹ אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ לִכְשֶׁתִּבְרַח מִמֶּנּוּ אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּךְ The Gemara asks: What is the phrase: His document, referring to? Rav Sheshet says that he writes for him as follows: When you will escape from the gentile to whom I sold you, I have no business with you. Consequently, as soon as he escapes his gentile master in any manner, he is entirely emancipated. It may be derived from here that the statement: I have no business with you, is valid with regard to manumission.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר וְדֵן דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת הָוְיָין יָדַיִם וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כְּתַב לָהּ וְדֵן מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דִּבְהַאי גִּיטָּא קָא מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ § It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says that in addition to the statement: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, there is another essential sentence in the bill of divorce: And this [veden] that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter [ve’iggeret] of leave. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations. An incomplete statement is sufficient as long as the intention is clear from the context. And therefore, even if he does not write for her explicitly: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, the bill of divorce is valid as it is evident that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְיָין יָדַיִם וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לַהּ וְדֵן דְּמוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דִּבְהַאי גִּיטָּא קָא מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ אֲבָל לָא כְּתַב לָהּ וְדֵן אָמְרִי בְּדִיבּוּרָא גָּרְשַׁהּ וּשְׁטָרָא רְאָיָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא And Rabbi Yehuda holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, and therefore the reason that the bill of divorce is valid is that he writes for her: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, so it is evident that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce. But if he does not write for her: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, people will say that he is divorcing her orally, and will mistakenly assume that the husband’s statement to her when he hands her the bill of divorce is what causes the divorce to take effect, and that the document is merely evidence of the divorce, rather than the divorce itself.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הַאי מַאן דְּכָתֵב גִּיטָּא לָא לִכְתּוֹב וְדֵין דְּמַשְׁמַע וְדִין אֶלָּא וְדֵן § The Gemara relates several rulings concerning the precise terminology to be used in writing a bill of divorce. Abaye said: This person who writes a bill of divorce should not write the word meaning: And this, by spelling it vav, dalet, yod, nun, as that can be misread as having the vowel of a ḥirik under the letter dalet, not a tzeire. Read with a ḥirik, it indicates: And there is a law that we should get divorced. Rather, he should make sure to write the word meaning: And this, without a yod, so that it is clear that it should be read with a tzeire.
וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב אִיגֶּרֶת דְּמַשְׁמַע (אִיגֶּרֶת) [אִיגָּרָא] אֶלָּא אִגֶּרֶת וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב לִימְהָךְ דְּמַשְׁמַע לִי מֵהָךְ וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב לִמְחָךְ דְּמַשְׁמַע כִּי חוּכָא And he should not write the word meaning: A letter, by spelling it alef, yod, gimmel, reish, tav, as that can be confused with another identically spelled word that indicates a roof. Rather, he should write the word meaning: A letter, without a yod. And he should not write: To go, by spelling it lamed, yod, mem, heh, khaf, as that could be read as a conjunction which indicates: For me from this. And he should be sure not to write limḥakh, i.e., he must be careful that the letter heh not look like a ḥet, as that indicates that it is like a joke.
דִּיתִיהְוִייִין דִּיתִיצְבִּייִין תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹדִין דְּמַשְׁמַע תֶּהֶוְיָין וְתִצְבְּיָין וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו דְּתֵירוּכִין וּלְוָיו דְּשִׁבּוּקִין דְּמַשְׁמַע תְּרִיכִין וּשְׁבִיקִין Abaye continues: In the clause: That you shall be permitted to go marry any man that you wish, the words ditihevyin and dititzviyin must include three instances of the letter yod in a row in each word, as with only two instances of the letter yod these words indicate: That they shall be [tehevyan], and: That they wish [titzviyan], referring to other women. And he should extend the vav of teirukhin and the vav of shevukin, as otherwise, the vav may be mistaken for a yod, and those words spelled with a yod indicate divorced [terikhin] and left [shevikin] women. In other words, it will change the meaning from describing the document as one that divorces or sends away to describing the women as divorced and sent away.
וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו דְּכַדּוּ דְּמַשְׁמַע וּכְדִי וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב לְאִיתְנְסָבָא דְּמַשְׁמַע לָא יִתְנַסְבָא אֶלָּא לְהִתְנְסָבָא And in the clause: And now [ukhedu] I have dismissed and ousted and divorced you, he should extend the vav of khedu, as other-wise, the vav may be mistaken for a yod, and spelled with a yod it indicates: And with nothing [ukhedi]. And in the expression: To go marry [lehitnasseva] he should not write le’itnasseva with an alef and a yod, as, if he leaves space between the letters it will indicate: Will not get married [la yitnasseva]. Rather, he should write lehitnasseva, with a heh and without a yod, so there will be no room for this error.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ בָּעֵינַן וְדֵן אוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן וְדֵן § A dilemma was raised before them: Do we need to write: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish, or do we not need to write the clause beginning with the words: And this? Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or the Rabbis?
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאַתְקֵין רָבָא בְּגִיטֵּי אֵיךְ פְּלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנְיָא פְּטַר וְתָרֵיךְ יָת פְּלוֹנִיתָא אִינְתְּתֵיהּ דַּהֲוָת אִינְתְּתֵיהּ מִן קֳדָם דְּנָא מִיּוֹמָא דְּנַן וּלְעָלַם וְאִילּוּ וְדֵן לָא קָאָמַר Come and hear a solution, as Rava instituted the following wording in bills of divorce: We saw how so-and-so, son of so-and-so, dismissed and divorced so-and-so, his wife, who was his wife from beforehand, from this day and forever. But he did not state the clause beginning with the words: And this.
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ כּוּלְּהוּ מִי קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בָּעֵינַן הָכָא נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן The Gemara challenges this solution: And according to your reasoning, did Rava state all of the other necessary clauses of a bill of divorce? Rather, we need to write them even though they were not mentioned explicitly in Rava’s formulation. Here too, we need to write the clause beginning with the words: And this, even though it was not mentioned specifically by Rava.
מִיּוֹמָא דְּנַן לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו § The Gemara analyzes the wording instituted by Rava: The expression: From this day, is written to the exclusion of the statement of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect, and therefore it is not necessary to write the expression: From this day. Rava added this expression to take the opposite opinion into account.
וּלְעָלַם The expression: And forever,