Gittin

, because it is not possible to cut off the hand [and give it to her]. But where [it is written] on the horn of an ox [why need the ox be given to her]? Let the husband cut it off and give it to her? — Scripture says, He shall write and give to her.  [This means that the Get must be on something] which requires only to be written on and to be given [to make it effective]: it excludes [something like] this which requires to be written on, to be cut off, and to be given [before it can become effective]. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS etc. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — As it has been taught: [From the word] sefer  I understand [that the husband must give the wife] a 'book'.  How do I know that any thing will serve the purpose? Because it says, 'and he write her', that is to say, any form of written document — If so why does it specify 'book'? To show that, just as a 'book' is not animate and does not eat, so the document used for the Get must be inanimate and not a thing which eats. What do the Rabbis [who allow this say to this]? — [They can reply:] If the text had written be sefer ['in a book'], your deduction would be correct, but as it writes sefer it refers only to the record [sefirath,]  of the circumstances. What do the Rabbis make of the word we-kathab ['and he shall write']?  — They require it to [deduce therefrom the rule that a woman] is divorced by a written document and not by a money gift. For you might think that her separation from her husband is to be effected in the same way as her union with him:  just as the union was effected by a money payment,  so also the separation. Now I know [that this is not so]. From whence then does R. Jose derive this lesson?  — From the words 'a writ of cutting off': a written [document] effects the 'cutting' [separation] and not anything else. What then do the Rabbis make of these words?  — They deduce from them that [for a Get] we require something which genuinely cuts off the husband from the wife, as it has been taught: '[If a man says to his wife], Here is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, that you never go to your father's house, this is no "cutting off".  But if he says, on condition that you do not do so for thirty days, this is "cutting off".' Whence does R. Jose derive this lesson?  — From [the fact that the text uses the word] kerithuth when it might use the simpler form kareth.  What do the Rabbis make of this?  — They do not stress the difference between kerithuth and kareth. MISHNAH. [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING STILL ATTACHED TO THE SOIL AND THEN DETACHED AND SIGNED AND GIVEN TO THE WIFE, IT IS VALID. R. JUDAH DECLARES IT INVALID UNLESS IT IS BOTH WRITTEN AND SIGNED ON SOMETHING NOT ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS THAT [A GET] MUST NOT BE WRITTEN ON A SHEET FROM WHICH WRITING HAS BEEN ERASED  NOR ON DIFTERA,  BECAUSE WRITING ON IT CAN BE ALTERED [WITHOUT BEING NOTICEABLE]. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, DECLARE SUCH A GET VALID. GEMARA. IF IT IS WRITTEN ON SOMETHING ATTACHED TO THE SOIL. Does not the Mishnah say just before this that it must not be so written? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It may be so written if a place is left blank for the substantive part.  The same statement was made by R. Eleazar in the name of R. Oshiah: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. The same statement was also made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: It may [be so written] if a place is left blank for the substantive part. And [our Mishnah] follows R. Eleazar, who says that it is the witnesses to delivery who [make the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The formal  part [of the Get] must not be written [on something attached to the soil] lest one should come to write thereon the substantive part also. If, however, the formal part was written [on something still attached to the soil] and then detached and the substantive part was then filled in and [the Get] given to her, it is valid.' Resh Lakish, however, said: Our Mishnah says distinctly, AND SIGNED'. [This shows that] it follows the view of R. Meir who said that the signatures of the witnesses make [the Get] effective, and it is to be interpreted as follows: 'The substantive part must not be written [on something still attached to the soil] for fear lest the signatures should also be affixed to it [while in that state]. If, however, the substantive part was so written, and the Get was then detached and signed and given to her, it is valid.' If it is written on the surface of an earthenware flowerpot with a hole at the bottom  it is valid, because he can take the pot and give it to her.  If it is written on a leaf inside a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, Abaye says it is valid and Raba says it is not valid. Abaye says it is valid