משנה: כָּל־גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמַע קוֹל הַסּוֹפְרִים מַקְרִים אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ פְלוֹנִית מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאָמַר זֶה שְׁמִי וְזֶה שֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי פָּסוּל מִלְּגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ מְצָאוֹ בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁמִי כִשְׁמָךְ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ פָּסוּל מִלְּגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן אָמַר לַלִּיבֶּלָּר כְּתוֹב לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ פָּסוּל מִלְּגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ. MISHNAH: Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife1If the scribe did not intend to write for one particular woman. As will be clear from the sequel, the scribe not only has to know the wife’s name but her identity as well. is invalid. How? If one was walking in the market and heard the scribes dictating2A school of scribes and the teachers were dictating a text as example of a bill of divorce. At the end of the course, every student would have forms available for all situations. “Mr. X divorces his wife Y from place Z” and said, these are mine and my wife’s names, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he wrote [a bill] to divorce his wife but had second thoughts, and a fellow townsman came and said to him, my name is identical with yours and my wife’s name is identical with your wife’s, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce by. In addition, if he had two wives with identical names and wrote a document to divorce the older one by, he cannot use it to divorce the younger. In addition, if he said to the scribe: write that I may divorce either one3Of the two who have identical names. I wish, it is invalid and cannot be used to divorce either one.
הלכה: כָּל־גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה כול׳. מַהוּ מַקְרִין. מְלַמְּדֵי תִינּוֹקוֹת. מָהוּ יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן. תַּמָּן לֹא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם גֵּט. בְּרַם הָכָא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם גֵּט. מָהוּ יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן. תַּמָּן (תַּנִּינָן) לֹא נִכְתַּב לֹא לִשְׁמוֹ וְלֹא לִשְׁמָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמוֹ וְלֹא נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ. מָהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכֵּאן. תַּמָּן לֹא נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמוֹ וְלֹא נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ כְּרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. HALAKHAH: “Every bill of divorce which was not written for a particular wife,” etc. Who is dictating? School teachers5In the Babli, 24b, “a training course for scribes.”. 6From the Babli, 24b, it appears that the remainder of this paragraph is a baraita. What means “in addition”7In what is the case of the man who wants to use somebody else’s bill different from the case of the bill written as a writing exercise?? There it was not written as a bill of divorce but here it was written as a bill of divorce. What means “in addition”8The question is what is the difference between the bill destined for the older one and the bill destined for either one of the two.? There it was written neither in his name nor in her name but here it was written in his name but not in her name. What means “in addition”? There it was written in his name but not in her name but here it was written in his name and in her name but it was not written for divorce from the start9Deut. 24:1 requires that the husband “write her a scroll of divorce”; it must be written from the start for one and only one divorce..
רַב אָמַר. כּוּלְּהֵם אֵינָן פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. אִיסִּי אָמַר. כּוּלָּן פְּסוּלִין חוּץ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ פָסוּל. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִינְנָא אָמַר. כּוּלָּן פְּסוּלִין. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָֽמְרָה. כּוּלָּן פְּסוּלִין. דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס פָּסוּל. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָֽמְרָה. כּוּלָּן אֵינָן פְּסוּלִין. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּתַב תָּרְפּוֹ בַּטּוֹפֶס כָּשֵׁר. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָֽמְרָה. כּוּלָּן אֵינָן פְּסוּלִין. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שָׁאַל. כְּתַב קִידּוּשִּׁין שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתְפְּסוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. מִן מַה דִּצְרִיכִין לָהּ בְּגִיטִּין שֶׁאֵינָן פְּסוּלִין לְפוּם כֵּן שָׁאַל לָהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין. אִין תֵּימַר. צְרִיכִין לָהּ בְּגִיטִּין. לֹא יִשְׁאַלֶינָּהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין. מָה אִם גִּיטִּין עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִשְׁמָהּ וְכָתַב שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ לֹא נָֽגְעוּ בָהּ גֵּירוּשִׁין. קִידּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִשְׁמָהּ וְכָתַב שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּתְפְּסוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. וּתְהֵא פְשִׁיטָה לֵיהּ הָא. כֵּן הוּא פְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא לָֽמְדוּ כְּתַב קִידּוּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִגֵּירוּשִׁין. מַה בְּגֵירוּשִׁין אֵינָהּ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת אף בְּקִידּוּשִׁין אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶשֶׁת. Rav said, none of these are invalid10As explained in Chapter 2, Note 132, if a Cohen divorces his wife with a document which is found to be invalid but which possibly might have been valid, (the technical term is: the document has the “smell” of a bill of divorce) one forces the Cohen to deliver a valid divorce document to his wife and he is prohibited from changing his mind and not divorce her. Rav states that all the bills of divorce mentioned in the Mishnah except the last do not have a “smell” of a bill of divorce; they are pieces of paper, not bills of divorce, neither valid nor invalid. except for the last which is invalid11The bill written for two wives with identical names is invalid but if the husband is a Cohen he is forced to divorce the wife to whom the bill was delivered.. Issi12In the Babli, 24b/25a, Rav’s opinion is atributed to Rav Assi (= Issi) and vice versa. said, all are invalid13And force a definitive divorce if made by a Cohen. In the Babli, 24b, this position is attributed to Rav. except for the first which is not invalid. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena14An Amora of this name is not otherwise known. In the Geniza text, the name is Ze‘ur bar Ḥinena, known from both Talmudim as the name of a third-Century Amora who almost was killed by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. said, all are invalid15In the Babli, 24b, this appears as Samuel’s opinion.. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implied that all are invalid since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is invalid16The sentence about R. Simeon ben Laqish is missing in the Geniza text. R. Simeon ben Laqish considers the statement that the document is one of divorce so important that its writing without the explicit instruction by the husband invalidates the bill; cf. Chapter 2, Notes 100,101. But his choice of the word “invalid”, not that “there is no ‘smell’ of a divorce”, shows that in all cases he holds that any material expression of the husband’s desire to divorce prohibits the Cohen to remain married to his wife.. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implied that none are invalid since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid17R. Joḥanan strictly follows the Mishnah that only the names of husband and wife and the date have to be written by the explicit instruction of the husband. Therefore, he also follows the language of the Mishnah, not that the bills of divorce are simply invalid but are “invalid to be used in divorce”, meaning that the use of any of these documents cannot imply any divorce in any form. (The classical commentators all feel obliged to switch the positions attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan; this position cannot be sustained against the testimony of both mss.) The Babli, 25a, quotes R. Joḥanan in the sense given here but explains his disagreement with the position attributed here to Rav by the fact that he never admits retroactive validation of documents; therefore, he cannot admit that the husband has the power to decide after the writing of the document to which wife it shall apply.. Does the word of Rebbi Eleazar imply that none are invalid? Since Rebbi Eleazar asked: if one wrote a bill of preliminary marriage18Mishnah Qiddušin 1:1 states that a preliminary marriage can be effected either by a transfer of valuables, or a contract, or sexual relations. It is then explained [Qiddušin 1:1 (58c 1. 29), Babli 9a] that the contract is a written statement by the groom declaring his future bride to be his wife; the marriage is effected by the acceptance of the letter by the adressee (or, if she is underage, her father). not for a specific name19Meaning: not for a specific woman; since no name has to be written in the statement, it may simply read: By accepting this document, you are my wife. The document contains no formulaic text., does preliminary marriage take hold? If he had a problem with divorce, would he ask about preliminary marriage20If he thought that any of the bills of divorce mentioned in the Mishnah would possibly count as active for a Cohen’s wife, he would have to ask about circumstances of divorce, where the problems are real and grave.? Since in the case of divorce, where the document is required to be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce will not touch her, is it not logical that in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage take hold with her21The Geniza text has a longer argument: “Since he has a problem with divorce where [the documents] are not invalid; therefore he asks about preliminary marriage. If you say he has a problem with divorce, he should not ask about preliminary marriage. Since in the case of divorce, where it is required that the document be for a specific name and he did not write for a specific name, divorce did not touch her; in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required, if it was not for a specific name preliminary marriage should take hold of her. It should be so. That is impossible. Since in the case of divorce, where it is required to be for a specific name, if it was not for a specific name, divorce did touch her; in the case of preliminary marriage, where a specific name is not required and he did not write for a specific name, preliminary marriage should take hold of her.” It is difficult to make coherent sense of this text.? That should be obvious to him. Really, the following is obvious to him: Since one inferred the bill of preliminary marriage only from divorce22The validity of a preliminary marriage by a symbolic bride purchase is given biblical status by reading Deut. 24:1 “if a man take a wife” as “if a man buy a wife” since in Mishnaic Hebrew the verb לקח means “to buy” [Qiddušin1:1 (58b 1.35), Babli 4b]. The possibility of marriage by document is inferred from Deut. 24:2: “She [the divorcee] left his house, went and became another man‘s.” Since “becoming a manʻs” means to marry him, the verse connects leaving (divorce) with becoming (marriage). Since leaving is effected by a document, so becoming can be effected by a document [Qiddušin 1:1 (58b 1.33), Babli 9b]. Therefore, a document invalid for leaving must be invalid for becoming., and in the case of divorce she is not divorced, in the case of preliminary marriage she is not preliminarily married23The Babli agrees, Qiddušin 9b. There, the question is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish; the argument agrees with the latter’s position as given here..
רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. גֵּט אֶחָד פָּסוּל בִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. וְדִכְװָתָהּ וְהֵן שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין פְּסוּלִין בִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בָּעוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין שֶׁשִּׁילְחוּ שְׁנַיִם וְנִתְעָֽרְבוּ נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶן לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶן לָזוֹ. תַּמָּן זֶה כָרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ וְזֶה כָרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ. תַּעֲרוֹבֶת הִיא שֶׁגָּֽרְמָה. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא זוֹ כָרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ וְלֹא זוֹ כָרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose asked before Rebbi Yose: Concerning what you say that one bill of divorce is invalid for two women24This refers to the last clause in the Mishnah, when the husband, married to two identically named women, orders a bill of divorce in their name without specifying to whom it will refer., should not two bills of divorce be invalid for two women? He asked him, what is the question? He answered, did we not state25Mishnah 9:5.: “If two people sent two [identical]26Added from the Geniza text. The same messenger carries two bills of divorce from two men, both called X ben Y, to two wives, both called Z bat U. bills of divorce which were intermingled26Added from the Geniza text. The same messenger carries two bills of divorce from two men, both called X ben Y, to two wives, both called Z bat U., he gives both documents to both women.” There, it is a divorce for this one and a divorce for the other one; the mix-up caused [the problem]27If each wife receives both bills it is certain that each one received the one intended for her.. But here, neither this one is divorced in her name nor is that one divorced in her name.
מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ יֵעָשֶׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כָרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֵׁם דְּרִבִּי ביבון. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר לְאוּמָן עֲשֵׂה לוֹ שְׁנֵי זוֹגִין. אֶחָד לַקַּרְקַע וְאֶחָד לִבְהֵמָה. עֲשֵׂה לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַחֲלָצוֹת. אַחַת לִישִׁיבָה וְאַחַת לְאוֹהָלִים. עֲשֵׂה לוֹ שְׁנֵי סַדִינִין. אֶחָד לִשְׁכִיבָה וְאֶחָד לְעוֹרוֹת. עַד שֶׁיְּפָֽרְישֵׁם בְּטָהֳרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמעוֹן מְטָהֵר עַד שֶׁיְּפָֽרְישֵׁם בְּטוּמְאָה. כְּמָה דְּהוּא אָמַר תַּמָּן. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כְּלִי מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. כָּךְ הוּא אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא כְרוּת לִשְׁמָהּ מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. After it was delivered to her24This refers to the last clause in the Mishnah, when the husband, married to two identically named women, orders a bill of divorce in their name without specifying to whom it will refer., could it not be considered as if written in her name from the start28Since the bill was written for one of two women, can one not say that the delivery made it clear that from the start it was written for the recipient?? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi [Abin bar Ḥiyya]29Text of the Geniza.: It follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated30Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 1:14.: “If one said to a craftsman, make me two bells, one for the ground31In the Tosephta: For the door. “For the ground” means the same, i. e., to be affixed to a structure connected to the ground. A cowbell can become impure (Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣiʻa 1:13) but a doorbell cannot become impure. and one for an animal, make me two mats, one to sit on and one for a tent32A mat to sit on can become impure in many ways; a mat used as part of a tent cannot become impure., make me two sheets33Textile sheets., one to lie on and one for [a pattern]34The translation follows the Geniza text, supported by the Tosephta. A bed sheet can become impure like a mat; a sheet on which a picture is embroidered to serve as a pattern to be copied is not a utensil and is pure (Mishnah Kelim 24:13; concurrent explanation by Arukh, Maimonides, and R. Simson of Sens, based on a Gaonic source.) The Leiden ms. text, “for hides” is difficult to understand since a sheet used as wrapping is an implement and subject to the impurity of utensils., 35In the Tosephta the text reads: “All these accept impurity up to the moment when he spells out;” if a utensil is made which can serve a dual purpose, it can become impure (once finished) unless it is clearly designated for a use which shields it from impurity. The common testimony of both ms. texts leaves no room for the addition of the Tosephta but its interpretation is similar: All these utensils are subject to impurity unless he spells out which one is pure, i. e., is shielded from impurity. only if he designated them in purity. Rebbi Simeon declares them pure unless he designated them for impurity36Since a manufactured item only accepts impurity if it is used as a vessel or a tool, R. Simeon rejects any retroactivity in the designation of dual use items and declares that impurity can affect the item only in the future, after it was designated as tool or utensil, even if it was exposed to impurity beforehand (cf. D. Pardo, Commentary on the Tosephta, Part 4-1, ed. S. Lieberman, New York - Jerusalem 1970, p. 84). In the Tosephta, R. Simeon agrees that if an item is manufactured for sale as a utensil it is subject to impurity up to the moment a buyer designates it for a protected use..” As he said there, only if it was a utensil from the start, so he says, unless it was a divorce in her name from the start37He rejects any retroactivity, cf. Note 17..
רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי ביבון בַּר חִייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְתַנֵּי כֵן. כָּל־הַּתְּנָאִים פּוֹסְלִין בַּגֵּט. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֶת שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל בַּפֵּה פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל בַּפֵּה אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכָל־אָדָם חוּץ מִפְּלוֹנִי. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא פוֹסֵל בַּפֶּה פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב. הֲרֵי זֶה גִיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז. הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל בַּפֵּה אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁבִּיטֵּל תְּנָאוֹ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא בִיטֵּל תְּנָאוֹ אַף רִבִּי מוֹדֶה. הֲרֵי הוּא אָמַר. כָּל־הַתְּנָאִין שֶׁהִתְנִינוּ בַגִּיטִּין דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. תַּמָּן בַּכּוֹתֵב עַל מְנָת כֵּן. בְּרַם הָכָא בַּנּוֹתֵן עַל מְנָת כֵּן. רִבִּי עֶזְרָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָא אֵין תּוֹפְשִׂין כְּרִבִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָן אַתְּ בָּעֵי. מִן רִבִּי. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹסֵל בַּטּוֹפְסִין. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כָּל־הַתְּנָאִין פּוֹסְלִין בַּגֵּט. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וַעֲבַד כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שָֽׁבְקִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְעָֽבְדִין כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הוֹרָיוֹתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוֹרָייָה וְהוֹרָייָתָא דְּרֵֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָאו הוֹרָייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. לֹא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ פְּלִיג עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתָא שָׁמַע וְעָמַד עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַתְּרִיס לָקֳבֶּל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּגִין דְּאִיתְפְּלִיג עֲלֵהּ אֶלָּא בְּגִין מַפְקִין עוֹבַד מִינֵּיהּ. כַּד שָׁמַע מַתְנִיתָא הוּא סָמַךְ עֲלֵיהּ. כַּד דְּלָא שָׁמַע מַתְנִיתָא הוּא מְבַטֵּל דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִקּוֹמֵי דַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, [this is Rebbi’s opinion.]39From the Geniza text, missing in the Leiden ms. but confirmed by Nahmanides (Milḥamot Hashem, on Alfasi #556). One still discusses the case of the man with two wives whose names are identical; Rebbi rejects the bill of divorce since he holds that its meaning must be clear before it is delivered; cf. Note 45. Rebbi Joḥanan said, and it was stated so40The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 84b.: “All conditions41The bill of divorce is called סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת “a scroll of cutting” in Deut. 24:1. This is interpreted to mean that all ties between husband and wife have to be cut; a divorce in which the husband retains any influence in his wife’s life is invalid. invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rebbi42Any condition written into the bill invalidates the bill. If the husband wants to attach a condition to the divorce he has to negotiate this separately with his wife before delivering the bill.. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing43This reserves an influence of the husband’s for the rest of the wife’s life and clearly invalidates the divorce.. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing44The divorce becomes valid immediately; the wife accepts a monetary obligation which the husband eventually could enforce by foreclosure. If the stipulation had read: on condition that you pay me 200 zuz within 30 days, then the divorce would become valid if and only if the money had been paid within 30 days. If it had read: only if you pay me 200 zuz, the divorce would be invalid since without a time limit there is no separation. The Babli’s concerns, whether the stipulation was written in the declaration of divorce or attached to it, are unknown to the Yerushalmi and all explanations of the Yerushalmi text based on the Babli have to be rejected, as noted by Naḥmanides (Note 39).. Rebbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did nor rescind his condition, even Rebbi agrees45In this interpretation, Rebbi agrees with the Sages on what is or is not an acceptable condition. He differs in that (a) he does not permit any erasures in a bill of divorce and (b) he stipulates that there cannot be any change in conditions after the delivery of the bill.. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rebbi46It is unreasonable to assume that Rebbi formulated an entire series of Mishnaiot about conditions attached to divorce documents (Chapter 7) if he himself held that these are impossible.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.47The previous argument is invalid; the Mishnaiot are about conditions attached to, but no written in, the bill of divorce.” Rebbi Ezra48Cf. Chapter 2, Note 80. asked before Rebbi Mana: Does this imply that Rebbi does not recognize formulaic texts49Since he does not admit any conditions to be written in the text of the bill, he does not make any distinction between the formulaic text and the essential entries. Does this imply that he prohibits the scribe from preparing bills where only the names, the date, and the declaration of the divorce can be entered with a specific couple in mind?? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rebbi! He follows Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulaic texts50In Mishnah 3:2.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce51No condition can be written in the bill; if written it would have to be a separate codicil.. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish52Since the condition was written in the bill, he declared it invalid.. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rebbi Joḥanan53Who permitted written conditions under certain cirsumstances. and act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rebbi Joḥanan’s instruction an instruction but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction54The Babli would take this as a statement of fact.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish55Who only was No. 2 in R. Joḥanan’s court. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, but he understood a baraita56The text is not spelled out. and acted accordingly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rebbi Joḥanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita, he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita, he retracts his opinion before Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion.