Gittin

R. JUDAH SAYS: [HE MUST ADD,] AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE AND A BILL OF DISMISSAL. WHEREWITH YOU MAY GO AND MARRY ANY MAN THAT YOU PLEASE. THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. GEMARA. There is no question that if a man says to his wife, Behold you are hereby a free woman, his words are of no effect,  and if he says to his bondwoman, Behold you are hereby permitted to any man, his words are of no effect.  If he said to his wife, Behold you belong to yourself, what are we to say? Does he mean, you belong to yourself entirely, or only as far as your work is concerned? — Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: Since we have learnt: THE ESSENCE OF A DEED OF EMANCIPATION IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY A FREE WOMAN, BEHOLD YOU BELONG TO YOURSELF. Now seeing that a slave whose body belongs [to his master] becomes his own owner when he says to him, Behold you belong to yourself, how much more so with a wife whose body does not belong to him? Rabina asked R. Ashi: If a man said to his slave, I have no concern with you, what [are we to say]? — R. Hanin said to R. Ashi, or, according to another report, R. Hanin of Huzna'ah  said to R. Ashi: Come and hear, as it has been taught:  If a man sells his slave to a heathen, he thereby becomes emancipated, but he requires a deed of emancipation from his first master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is the case only if he did not write out an oni for him, but if he wrote out an oni for him, this is his deed of emancipation. What is an oni? — R. Shesheth said: If he gave him a written statement saying. If you escape from him, I have no concern with you. RABBI JUDAH SAYS. [HE MUST ADD], AND THIS SHALL BE TO YOU FROM ME A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND A LETTER OF RELEASE. What is the ground of the difference [between the Rabbis and R. Judah]? — The Rabbis held that an indication  which is not definite can still count as an indication,  and so though he did not insert the words 'and this', the circumstances show that he was divorcing her with this Get. R, Judah on the other hand held that an indication not definite does not count as an indication, and the reason why the Get is valid is because he has inserted the words 'and this', which show that he was divorcing her with this Get, but if he did not insert these words, people will say that he divorced her by word of mouth, and the document is merely a corroboration. Abaye said: The one who writes out the Get should not spell [H] which might be read we-din [and it is just], but [H].  He should not spell [H] which might be read igarath [a roof], but [H].  He should not write [H]  which might be read li-mehak [to me from this], nor should he spell [H]  which might be understood 'as a joke'. The words and [H] and [H]  should have each three yods [at the end], as two might be read di-tehewjan  [that they may be] and de-tezibjan  [whom they may like]. The waw of the words [H]  and [H]  should be lengthened  as otherwise the words might be read terikin [those who are divorced] and shebikin [those that are released].  The waw of [H]  should also be lengthened so as not to read [H] which means 'in vain'. He should not write [H] which might be read la-yithnesseba [she shall not be married], but [H]. The question was raised: Are the words 'and this' required or not? — Come and hear: Raba laid down the formula of the Get thus: '[We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of So-and-so dismissed and divorced his wife from this day and for all time'. We see that he does not mention 'and this'. But if we are to go by this, we might ask, did he mention all the rest of the Get? Nevertheless we require the rest, and so we require [this also]. The words 'from this day' are to rule out the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.  The words 'for all time',