## Gittin Daf 20a

###### Gittin 20a:1
[Gittin 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:1)

אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת דְּאִית בַּהּ – הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** there is a concern that the Torah scroll can effect a divorce **due to** the verses concerning **severance** of marriage **that there are in** it, as it is written: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1), this is also not problematic, since **it is required,** as it states: **“And he writes her.”** This indicates that the bill of divorce must be written **for her sake,** i.e., it must be written for the express intent of being used to effect divorce between this specific man and this specific woman, **and** this is **not** so in the case of a Torah scroll.


###### Gittin 20a:2
[Gittin 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:2)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אַקְדֵּים וִיהַב לֵיהּ זוּזָא לְסָפְרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא; הָא בָּעֵינַן ״שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ״, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that there is reason **to be concerned** that **perhaps he first gave a dinar to the scribe at the outset,** when he wrote the Torah scroll, and told him to write the verses discussing divorce for his wife’s sake, **isn’t there a need** for other things to be written in a bill of divorce as well, as the mishna (80a) teaches: If the scribe **changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city,** then the bill of divorce is invalid. The validity of a bill of divorce depends upon these details being written, **and** they are **not** in the Torah scroll.


###### Gittin 20a:3
[Gittin 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:3)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? שֶׁאֵין מֵי מֵילִין עַל גַּבֵּי מֵי מֵילִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **what is Rav Yosef teaching us** with his statement? It seems obvious that there is no reason why a Torah scroll could be used as a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: He is teaching us that **gall water is not** permanent when applied **on top of gall water.** The novel idea is that there is no need to be concerned that the scribe wrote a bill of divorce in gall water on the outside of the Torah scroll.


###### Gittin 20a:4
[Gittin 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:4)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס לִשְׁמָהּ, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda says:** If **a bill of divorce was written not for her sake, and** the scribe **passed over it** with **a reed** pen, meaning that he wrote on top of what was already written, **for her sake,** then here **we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.**


###### Gittin 20a:5
[Gittin 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִכְתּוֹב ״יְהוּדָה״ וְטָעָה וְלֹא הֵטִיל בּוֹ דָּלֶת, מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַשֵּׁם מִן הַמּוּבְחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text **that he needed to write the name** of God, spelled *yod*, *heh*, *vav*, *heh*; and he erred **and intended to write Yehuda,** spelled *yod*, *heh*, *vav*, *dalet*, *heh*, **but he made a mistake** when writing Yehuda **and did not place a *dalet* in** the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then **he should pass over it with a reed** pen. He writes over what was written **and sanctifies it** with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say:** Even if he adds a second layer of ink, **the name** has **not** been written **in the optimal manner.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, one can supply the intention of writing the name of God for its own sake even when adding a second layer of writing over the first, while according to the Rabbis one cannot. The same dispute would presumably apply in the case of a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 20a:6
[Gittin 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:6)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, דְּבָעֵינָא זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ, וְלֵיכָּא; אֲבָל הָכָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Perhaps** that **is not so,** and **the Rabbis say only there,** in the case of a Torah scroll, that one may not write the name of God in this manner, **because it is required** that one perform anything sacred, including the writing of a Torah scroll, in accordance with the verse: **“This is my God, and I will glorify Him”** (Exodus 15:2). This verse requires that mitzvot be performed in a way that is glorious and aesthetically pleasing, **and** rewriting in this manner is **not** considered beautiful. **But here,** with regard to a bill of divorce, there is **no** requirement that the bill of divorce be written beautifully, and therefore writing over the bill of divorce is acceptable according to the Rabbis as well.


###### Gittin 20a:7
[Gittin 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:7)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: יָכֵילְנָא לְמִיפְסְלִינְהוּ (לְכוּלֵּי) [לְכוּלְּהוּ] גִּיטֵּי דְּעָלְמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״וְכָתַב״, וְהָכָא אִיהִי קָא כָּתְבָה לֵיהּ; וְדִילְמָא אַקְנוֹיֵי אַקְנוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda said: I am able to invalidate all the bills of divorce in the world.** Most bills of divorce are written in a way that they could be declared invalid. If one were to be particular about certain details, then there would be no valid bills of divorce. **Rava said to him: What is the reason** that you could invalidate them? **If we say:** Most bills of divorce are invalid **because it is written** in the Torah: **“And he writes** her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1), **and here,** in the case of most bills of divorce, **she writes** it **for him,** as it is customary for a woman to pay a scribe to write the bill of divorce, **but** then **perhaps** it could be maintained that **the Sages transferred** the ownership of the bill of divorce **to him,** and it is considered as if he wrote it.


###### Gittin 20a:8
[Gittin 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:8)

וְאֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן״, וְהָכָא לָא יָהֵיב לַהּ מִידֵּי?! דִּלְמָא נְתִינַת גֵּט הִיא! תֵּדַע, דִּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** you might say that it is **because it is written: “And gives”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), which is usually understood to mean that the item given must have some monetary value, **and here** in the case of most bills of divorce **he doesn’t give her anything** of value. **Perhaps the** mere **giving of the bill of divorce is** the giving mentioned in the Torah, even if it does not have any monetary value. **Know** that it is not a requirement that the bill of divorce have monetary value, as the Sages **sent** this message **from there,** from Eretz Yisrael: If **he wrote** a bill of divorce **on items from which benefit is forbidden,** then although the bill of divorce is completely lacking monetary value, the bill of divorce is **valid.**


###### Gittin 20a:9
[Gittin 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:9)

גּוּפָא – שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״עַל הֶעָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת״! דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי עָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת, דַּחֲזֵי לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself:** The Sages **sent** this message **from there,** from Eretz Yisrael: If **he wrote** a bill of divorce **on items from which benefit is forbidden,** the bill of divorce is **valid. Rav Ashi said: We, too, learn** in the mishna that a bill of divorce may be written **on an olive leaf,** which has virtually no monetary value. This teaches that the bill of divorce need not have any value on its own, and even forbidden items, which have no value at all, may be used as the base on which the bill of divorce is written. The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps an olive leaf is different,** because **it can combine** with more leaves, and they will add up to have monetary value. However, an item from which one is prohibited from benefiting lacks value entirely, even in large quantities.


###### Gittin 20a:10
[Gittin 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:10)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּתָבוֹ עַל אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה – כָּשֵׁר. נְפַק לֵוִי, דַּרְשַׁהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְלָא קַלְּסוּהּ. מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּים, וְקַלְּסוּהּ. אַלְמָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the same *halakha*, the Gemara quotes an additional source. It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** If the scribe **wrote** a bill of divorce **on items from which benefit is forbidden,** it is **valid. Levi went out** and **expounded** upon **this** *halakha* **in the name** of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and they did not praise him.** He then expounded this *halakha* **in the name of the majority,** as an unattributed *halakha*, **and they praised him. Apparently, the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, when he stated the *halakha* in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, an individual, which may have led the listeners to think that it was a minority opinion and not the accepted *halakha*, they did not praise him.


###### Gittin 20a:11
[Gittin 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכָתַב״ – וְלֹא חָקַק. לְמֵימְרָא דַּחֲקִיקָה לָאו כְּתִיבָה הִיא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: עֶבֶד שֶׁיָּצָא בִּכְתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי טַבְלָא, וּפִינְקָס, יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפָּא וְאַנְדּוּכְתַּרִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** that it is said in the Torah with regard to a bill of divorce: **“And he writes** her a scroll of severance,” in order to emphasize that one must write the document **and not chisel** it. The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that chiseling is not writing? And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** based on what was taught in a *baraita*: If **a slave is emancipated** through a bill of manumission that was **written** by being chiseled **on a slate [*tavla*]** or on a **tablet [*pinekas*],** then **he goes free. However, he does not** go free **through writing on a cap or** on **an embroidered adornment.** If the master embroidered the bill of manumission onto a cloth and gave it to the slave, this is not considered to be like the writing of a document. In any case, the *baraita* teaches that a bill of manumission that is chiseled onto a slate is valid.


###### Gittin 20a:12
[Gittin 20a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:12)

אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּחַק תּוֹכוֹת, הָא דְּחַק יְרֵיכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said** that **Rabbi Elazar said:** It is **not difficult. This** case, where the document is not valid because engraving is not considered to be writing, occurs **when** the scribe **chiseled** the area **surrounding** the letters, i.e., he chiseled on the surface around the shape of the letters, leaving the letters raised on the tablet. **This** case, where the document is valid because chiseling is considered to be writing, occurs **when he chiseled the parts** of the letters, i.e., he chiseled the shape of the letters themselves onto the slate. Since he formed the letters directly, it is considered like writing.


###### Gittin 20a:13
[Gittin 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:13)

וְתוֹכוֹת – לָא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: לֹא הָיָה כְּתָבוֹ שׁוֹקֵעַ, אֶלָּא בּוֹלֵט – כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב. וְהָא דִּינְרֵי זָהָב תּוֹכוֹת הֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** if he chiseled the area **surrounding** the letters, is this **not** considered to be writing at all? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** based on what was taught: **The writing** of the High Priest’s frontplate **was not embedded,** i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; **rather, it protruded like** the form on **gold dinars. And isn’t** the shape on **gold dinars** formed by chiseling the area **surrounding** the letters, by applying pressure around the shape, so that the image and writing protrudes, and yet this is considered to be writing?


###### Gittin 20a:14
[Gittin 20a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:14)

כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב, וְלֹא כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב. כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב – דְּבוֹלֵט; וְלֹא כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב – דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם תּוֹכוֹת, הָכָא יְרֵיכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It means that the frontplate was fashioned **like** the form of **gold dinars** but **not** entirely **like** the form of **gold dinars.** It was fashioned **like** the form of **gold dinars** in that the writing **protrudes, but** it was **not** fashioned **like** the form of **gold dinars** entirely, **as there,** in the case of gold dinars, they chiseled the area **surrounding** the letters. **Here,** when making the frontplate, the inscription was done by chiseling **the parts** of the letter, i.e., they would carve the letters from the back of the frontplate so that they protruded from the front. Since the letters were carved directly, it was considered to be writing.


###### Gittin 20a:15
[Gittin 20a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רוּשְׁמָא – מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ, אוֹ כַּנּוֹפֵי מְכַנֵּיף? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this issue, **Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** Does the **press** that forms a metal coin **carve out** the background in the metal and the image of the coin is formed on its own, **or does it compress** the metal inward toward the empty space in the press and the letters are formed through this? **He said to him:** It **carves out** the background.


###### Gittin 20a:16
[Gittin 20a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/20a:16)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: לֹא הָיָה כְּתָבוֹ שׁוֹקֵעַ, אֶלָּא בּוֹלֵט כְּדִינְרֵי זָהָב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִיחְרָץ חֲרִיץ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He raised an objection to his** opinion based on what was taught earlier: **The writing** of the High Priest’s frontplate **was not embedded,** i.e., it was not carved into the frontplate; **rather, it protruded like** the form on **gold dinars. And if it enters your mind** to say that a press only **carves out** the background,