Yerushalmi Gittin 2:3 ירושלמי גיטין ב׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: One writes with anything, with ink, with vermilion, with gum, and with copper sulfate⁴⁴Since they permitted a bill signed on two different dates only in order to save the wife from being married to a husband who had disappeared, they agree with him that his rule represents the normal case., and anything that leaves a record. One does not write with drinks, or fruit juice, or anything not permanent. One writes on anything, on a leaf of the olive tree, on a cow’s horn if one delivers the cow to her⁴⁵This paragraph is paralleled in Šabbat 12:5 (13d 1. 29); the readings from there are noted ש., on a slave’s hand if one delivers the slave to her. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not write on anything living nor on food.

HALAKHAH: “One writes with anything,” etc. ⁴⁵This paragraph is paralleled in Šabbat 12:5 (13d 1. 29); the readings from there are noted ש.“He shall write⁴⁶Deut. 24:1: “He shall write her a scroll of divorce and deliver it into her hand.””, not engrave. “He shall write”, not dropping points. “He shall write”, not pouring. “He shall write”, not engrave; some Tannaïm state, he even may engrave. Rav Ḥisda⁴⁷In the Babli, 20a, this statement of the Babylonian Rav Ḥisda is in the name of the Galilean R. Eleazar. said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet⁴⁸On a wax-covered writing tablet (πίναξ), one writes by engraving. The same is true for writing cuneiform on clay tablets. Therefore, engraving can be called “writing”.. “He shall write”, not dropping points; Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom and Rebbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points⁴⁹Even though one can produce letters that look as if written, they are not written.. “He shall write”, not pouring. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret⁵⁰Greek μυστήριον “mystery or secret rite”. In the parallel sources the word is more appropriately the adjective μυστηρικός “of or for mysteries”. letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts⁵¹This is the meaning of the expression in the Babli, 19a. But the word might also mean “apple juice, fruit juice”, from Greek μῆλον “apple, or other fruit”.. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of the writing⁵²If the ink is washed off the paper, the writing becomes visible.. If one did that⁵³Is pouring a fluid over a paper to make invisible writing visible an act of writing, which is forbidden on the Sabbath? on the Sabbath, what? There, we have stated⁵⁴Mishnah Šabbat 12:5.: “Writing on top of writing is not prosecutable.” Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink or vermilion on vermilion⁵⁵In that case, the writing has no visible effect.. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is guilty. Rebbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis from there: He is doubly guilty, once for erasing and once for writing⁵⁶In the Babli, 19a, this is quoted as the common opinion of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish..

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied⁵⁷Following the reading in Šabbat. The reading of the two texts in Giṭṭin, “because they are not occupied”, does not make sense. The meaning is also confirmed by the parallel in the Babli, 19a. with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman⁵⁸Because writing with ink on vermilion is a desecration of the Sabbath, it does not follow that if illiterate witnesses draw their signatures in ink over vermilion letters that this is valid testimony. As the sentence after the next points out, the witnesses in that case paint the first writer’s letters; they do not sign in a way that could be notarized.? But he brings an blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them⁵⁹They draw with a pen along the lines cut into the paper. In the Babli, 19a, this method is attributed to Rav.. Would it not have been the first person’s handwriting⁶⁰The objection raised against R. Simeon ben Laqish can also be raised against R. Joḥanan. But for his method, the objection can be overcome by not cutting lines into the paper but cutting out small strips where the witness has some leeway where to draw his lines which spell his name.? One has to widen the cuts. Rebbi Mana said, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be accepted⁶¹If the witnesses just wrote over the letters, irrespective of how these were drawn, the signatures could not be notarized and the husband could claim that there are no signatures. The method indicated by R. Joḥanan is the only acceptable one.. If somebody tears into skin⁶²Before it was turned into leather which was used as writing material in those times. Since it is permitted to write with a stylus, a permanent inscription can be made on hide and this is valid. in the form of writing it is valid. If somebody sketches on skin⁶³Writing on untanned skin can simply be wiped off; this is not permanent writing and therefore is invalid as stated in the Mishnah. The parallel in Šabbat deals with the laws of Sabbath and characterizes the first writing as incurring guilt, because permanent, and the second as not prosecutable, because not permanent.
In the Tosephta, Giṭṭin 2:4, Šabbat11:8, the terms “valid, invalid” and “guilty, not prosecutable” are switched. in the form of writing it is invalid.

“This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give it to me,” is invalid⁶⁴If the bill of divorce has to be returned immediately, there is no divorce. Deut. 24:1 requires that the bill of divorce be “given into her hand”, i. e., be legally in her power.. “On condition that you return it to me,” is valid. Is that not the prior case? Rebbi Yose said, after you went to court⁶⁵Once the document has served its purpose, it may be returned without invalidating the divorce. In the Babli, 20b, the formulation is: “ ‘This is your bill of divorce but I remain the owner of the paper’ is invalid; ‘this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return the paper to me’ is valid.” Here also it is understood that the paper will be returned only when it is no longer needed.
The Geniza text reads: “after you acquired it.” The Leiden text is preferable since for the Geniza text the explanation which follows is unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “after you have acquired all the rights for which it was made, return it to me.⁶⁶He agrees with R. Yose; he only gives the legal formula for what the Babli calls “a transfer of ownership on condition that it be returned.” This is everywhere considered a valid transfer of ownership and, therefore, satisfies Deut. 24:1.” Similar to that: Etrogim⁶⁷Persian turungān (a word of Indian origin) designates all citrus fruits. It was used for citrus medica, rabbinic Hebrew etrôg, which was identified as the “fruit of the tree of splendor” mentioned in Lev. 23:40 together with palm branches, brook willows, and a branch of the thick-leaf tree (traditionally the myrtle). were scarce over there. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob gave an etrog to his son and said to him, if you have acquired it and fulfilled its obligation, return it to me⁶⁸Lev. 23:40 reads: “You shall take for yourselves on the first day palm branches …”. The prescribed ritual can only be fulfilled if the four kinds mentioned are the personal property of the celebrant. Therefore, if a person gives his “four kinds” to another person for the celebration, it cannot be a loan but must be “a transfer of ownership on condition that it be returned.” In Babylonian sources (Sukkah 41b, Tosephta Sukkah 2:11) the conditional transfer of ownership is a tannaïtic institution..

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he wrote it on a golden cup and said, the writing is yours but the space between the lines belongs to me? Is that writing⁶⁹In the Geniza text: “Does the text fly?” There is no text if there is no space between the letters. In Babylonian sources (Babli 20b, Tosephta 2:5) the formulation is: If he retains ownership of the paper, the bill is invalid.? Torn leather is valid, if it was torn it is invalid. If it was not torn by the tear of a court, but if it was torn by the tear of a court⁷⁰This text clearly is defective. In the Tosephta, 7:11, the text reads:נקרע כשר נתקרע פסול נקרע בו קרע של בית דין פסול “torn is valid, if it was torn it is invalid; if the tear is that of a court it is invalid.” The Geniza text is similar. In the opinion of most commentators, the meaning is that a bill of divorce written on a piece of leather that has a tear is valid but if it was torn after the document was written and signed but before it was delivered, it is invalid. In the opinion of S. Lieberman, נתקרע means that the piece of leather had many tears before it was used.. What is the tear of a court? Between the text and the witnesses.⁷¹If the ketubah was paid under the supervision of the court, the court will tear the bill of divorce to make sure that the divorcee cannot use the bill to collect the ketubah a second time in the jurisdiction of another court. Since the witnesses have to sign immediately after the text, to avoid the fraudulent insertion of additional text, a document in which the signatures are separated from the text is automatically invalid.

“On a leaf of the olive tree.” Is that not like torn⁷²The leaf is much to small for the text of the bill, even if written in miniature letters.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Bina bar Shila⁷³Text of the Geniza ms. and the Constantinople print. stated: Even if he only wrote: “I X am divorcing my wife,⁷⁴The name of the wife must be mentioned, the fact that she is his wife then need not be mentioned; the fact of the divorce must be mentioned.” it is valid. This follows what Rebbi Ila said, if he detailed it is invalid⁷⁵If the full text is written it must comply with all rules to be valid., if he did not detail⁷⁶If he only wrote his and her names and the fact of the divorce. it is valid.

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah⁷⁷Which requires that the cow be delivered to the wife as bill of divorce. in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together⁷⁸The moment she accepts the horns carrying the bill of divorce, she acquires the animal as part payment of the ketubah. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce.. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Ezra⁸⁰Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what⁸¹A bridled animal can be acquired by the buyer by taking the halter in his hand and causing the animal to walk one step at his command.? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand⁸²The bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand by being delivered by the husband, not by an active act of acquisition on her part. The formulation of this paragraph implies that this delivery of a bill of divorce is classified as invalid.!

What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is not food, so no food⁸³The same argument in the Babli, 21a. The interpretation of the rabbis’ position is quite different in the Babli.. What is the rabbis’ reason? “Scroll.” Since a scroll is detached, so everything detached⁸⁴This refers to Mishnah 4 where it is stated that a bill of divorce cannot be written on anything connected to the ground. The bill of divorce cannot be written on the walls of a house and the house given to the wife.. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food⁸⁵The stalks of fruits which usually are harvested together with the fruits have the status of fruits in the laws of impurity; this is the theme of Tractate Uqeṣin. The question is whether R. Yose the Galilean will forbid these inedible stalks as materials for bills of divorce since they are subject to the impurities of foodstuffs.? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers⁸⁶This baraita must be attributed to R. Yose the Galilean since for the rabbis the entire deer could have been given to the wife. The antlers are inedible bony structures attached to the living deer just as stalks are inedible wooden structures attached to fruits., shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to him⁸⁷This should be “her”, correctly in the Geniza text. As explained in the next Halakhah, “signing” covers not only the signatures of the witnesses but also the insertion of the necessary data into the formulaic text; cf. Note 100., it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off⁸⁸This proves that the antler is an integral part of the deer for R. Yose the Galilean. It is reasonable to assume that a stalk for him is an integral part of the fruit.
This rule also follows the rabbis of Mishnah 4 whose position is explained in the Babli (21b) from Deut. 24:1: “he writes and hands over to her” that no necessary action may intervene between signing and delivery of the document.. Rebbi Abba⁸⁹In the Geniza text: Aḥa. While it is known that R. Aḥa was a student of R. Miasha’s, the reading of the Leiden ms. cannot be rejected out of hand since Rabbis Abba and Aḥa were contemporaries. in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn⁹⁰This refers to horns of cattle and goats rather than deer. These horns consist of a horny sheath (the female horn) over a bony spur (the male).. But if he wrote on the sheath⁹¹Greek νάρθηξ; cf. Berakhot 5:2, Note 67. it is as if separated⁹²The rabbis of Mishnah 4 would certainly object and require that the entire animal be handed over to the wife; cf. Note 88. and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce⁹³While food is under rules of impurity that are much stricter than those for vessels, etc., harvesting alone does not transform produce into food for these rules; only intentional moistening will have that effect, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136–141.? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dropped from the animal on food⁹⁴In this case, the moistening was desired by him for the animal but not for the food. Mishnah Makhširin reads: Any fluid which at the start is desired, even if at the end it is not desired, or if at the end is desired, even if at the start it was not desired, fulfills the condition “that it be given” (i.e., it prepares for impurity by the terms of Lev. 11:38: “If water be given on seeds … it shall be impure for you”.) For the anonymous rabbis it is obvious that drops from water which was desired for the animal will prepare food for impurity by this Mishnah. But R. Yose the Galilean, who disqualifies animals as writing materials for bills of divorce, might equate animals to things connected to the soil which are disqualified for bills of divorce in Mishnah 4, and for objects of desire which act in impurity as explained in the following.. There, Rebbi Yose said “a scroll”, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so⁹⁵Does he exclude animals from the category of objects which prepare for impurity if watered? There seems to be no reason why this should be so.? There is a difference since it is written⁹⁶Lev. 11:34., “any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure”. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: “a vessel”⁹⁷A similar text is in Sifra Šemini Parašah 8(2): “I could think also [if it rained] into cisterns, ditches and caves? It is written: ‘a vessel’; since one of the characteristics of a vessel is that it is separated from the ground, so only things separated from the ground.” Everybody agrees that water collected in cisterns, etc., does not prepare for impurity; the reason for this has nothing to do with the controversy over writing materials..