## Gittin Daf 85b

###### Gittin 85b:1
[Gittin 85b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:1)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְדֵן, דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי – סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין, וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין, וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין; לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכֹל גְּבַר דִּיתִצְבִּיִּין״. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ (בַּת) [בֶּן] חוֹרִין״; ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that there is also another essential sentence: **And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish.** And **the basic** element **of a bill of manumission** for a maidservant is: **You are hereby a free woman,** or: **You are hereby your own.**


###### Gittin 85b:2
[Gittin 85b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** פְּשִׁיטָא, אָמַר לָהּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין״ – לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְּלוּם; אָמַר לָהּ לְשִׁפְחָתוֹ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מוּתֶּרֶת לְכׇל אָדָם״ – לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It is obvious** that if one **stated** in a bill of divorce **for his wife: You are hereby a free woman, he has stated nothing,** as that is not a statement of divorce. Similarly, if one **stated** in a bill of manumission **for his maidservant: You are hereby permitted to** marry **any man, he has stated nothing,** as that is not a statement of manumission.


###### Gittin 85b:3
[Gittin 85b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:3)

אָמַר לָהּ לְאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ״, מַהוּ? לִגְמָרֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ, אוֹ לִמְלָאכָה קָאָמַר לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If **he stated** in a bill of divorce **for** his **wife: You are hereby your own, what is** the *halakha*? **Is he saying to her:** You are **entirely** your own, meaning that she has full control over her status and may marry another man? **Or is he saying to her:** You are your own with regard **to work,** meaning that she may keep the revenue from her work? If so, this is not a statement of divorce.


###### Gittin 85b:4
[Gittin 85b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ (בַּת) [בֶּן] חוֹרִין״; ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ״. וּמָה עַבְדָּא, דִּקְנִי לֵיהּ גּוּפֵיהּ, כִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמָךְ״ – קְנִי גּוּפֵיהּ; אִשָּׁה, דְּלָא קְנִי גּוּפַהּ – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** a solution **that we learned** in the mishna: **The basic** element **of a bill of manumission is: You are hereby a free woman,** or: **You are hereby your own. And just as** with regard to **a slave, whose body is acquired** by the master, **if** the master **states** in a bill of manumission **for** the slave: **You are hereby your own,** the slave **acquires his body, all the more so** with regard to **a wife, whose body is not acquired** by her husband, is it **not** clear that by his writing in a bill of divorce: You are hereby your own, she is completely released from their marriage?


###### Gittin 85b:5
[Gittin 85b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ לְעַבְדּוֹ: ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּךְ״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** If **he stated** in a bill of manumission **for his slave: I have no business with you, what is** the *halakha*? Is this a valid statement of manumission?


###### Gittin 85b:6
[Gittin 85b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנִין לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב חָנִין מָחוֹזְנָאָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ, אֲבָל כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ – זֶהוּ שִׁחְרוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanin said to Rav Ashi, and some say** that it was **Rav Ḥanin from Meḥoza** who said this **to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** a solution **that we learned** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who sells his slave to a gentile,** the slave **is emancipated but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission from his first master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **when** the master **did not write his document for** the slave when he sold him; **but** if **he wrote his document for him, that is** the slave’s bill of **manumission.**


###### Gittin 85b:7
[Gittin 85b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:7)

מַאי ״אוֹנוֹ״? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״לִכְשֶׁתִּבְרַח מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the phrase: **His document,** referring to? **Rav Sheshet says that he writes for him** as follows: **When you will escape from** the gentile to whom I sold you, **I have no business with you.** Consequently, as soon as he escapes his gentile master in any manner, he is entirely emancipated. It may be derived from here that the statement: I have no business with you, is valid with regard to manumission.


###### Gittin 85b:8
[Gittin 85b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְדֵן, דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי – סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין״. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת הָוְיָין יָדַיִם, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כְּתַב לָהּ ״וְדֵן״ – מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דִּבְהַאי גִּיטָּא קָא מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says** that in addition to the statement: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, there is another essential sentence in the bill of divorce: **And this [*veden*] that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter [*ve’iggeret*] of leave.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree?** The Gemara answers: **The Rabbis hold** that **ambiguous intimations are valid intimations.** An incomplete statement is sufficient as long as the intention is clear from the context. **And** therefore, **even if he does not write for her** explicitly: **And this** that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, the bill of divorce is valid as **it is evident that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 85b:9
[Gittin 85b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:9)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: יָדַיִם שֶׁאֵין מוֹכִיחוֹת לָא הָוְיָין יָדַיִם, וְטַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לַהּ ״וְדֵן״ – דְּמוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דִּבְהַאי גִּיטָּא קָא מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ; אֲבָל לָא כְּתַב לָהּ ״וְדֵן״ – אָמְרִי: בְּדִיבּוּרָא גָּרְשַׁהּ, וּשְׁטָרָא רְאָיָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, and** therefore **the reason** that the bill of divorce **is** valid is **that he writes for her: And this** that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, **so it is evident that he is divorcing her with this bill of divorce. But** if **he does not write for her: And this** that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce and a letter of leave, people **will say** that **he is divorcing her orally,** and will mistakenly assume that the husband’s statement to her when he hands her the bill of divorce is what causes the divorce to take effect, **and** that **the document is merely evidence** of the divorce, rather than the divorce itself.


###### Gittin 85b:10
[Gittin 85b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּכָתֵב גִּיטָּא, לָא לִכְתּוֹב ״וְדֵין״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע וְדִין; אֶלָּא ״וְדֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates several rulings concerning the precise terminology to be used in writing a bill of divorce. **Abaye said: This person who writes a bill of divorce should not write** the word meaning: **And this,** by spelling it *vav*, *dalet*, *yod*, *nun*, **as** that can be misread as having the vowel of a *ḥirik* under the letter *dalet*, not a *tzeire*. Read with a *ḥirik*, it **indicates: And** there is **a law** that we should get divorced. **Rather,** he should make sure to write the word meaning: **And this,** without a *yod*, so that it is clear that it should be read with a *tzeire*.


###### Gittin 85b:11
[Gittin 85b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:11)

וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״אִיגֶּרֶת״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע (אִיגֶּרֶת) [אִיגָּרָא]; אֶלָּא ״אִגֶּרֶת״. וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״לִימְהָךְ״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע לִי מֵהָךְ; וְלָא לִכְתּוֹב ״לִמְחָךְ״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע כִּי חוּכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he should not write** the word meaning: **A letter,** by spelling it *alef*, *yod*, *gimmel*, *reish*, *tav*, **as** that can be confused with another identically spelled word that **indicates a roof. Rather,** he should write the word meaning: **A letter,** without a *yod*. **And he should not write: To go,** by spelling it *lamed*, *yod*, *mem*, *heh*, *khaf*, **as** that could be read as a conjunction which **indicates: For me from this. And he should** be sure **not to write *limḥakh*,** i.e., he must be careful that the letter *heh* not look like a *ḥet*, **as that indicates** that it is **like a joke.**


###### Gittin 85b:12
[Gittin 85b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:12)

״דִּיתִיהְוִייִין״, ״דִּיתִיצְבִּייִין״ – תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹדִין; דְּמַשְׁמַע תֶּהֶוְיָין וְתִצְבְּיָין. וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו ״דְּתֵירוּכִין״, וּלְוָיו ״דְּשִׁבּוּקִין״; דְּמַשְׁמַע תְּרִיכִין וּשְׁבִיקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: In the clause: That you shall be permitted to go marry any man that you wish, the words ***ditihevyin*** and ***dititzviyin*** must include **three** instances of the letter ***yod*** in a row in each word, **as** with only two instances of the letter *yod* these words **indicate:** That **they shall be [*tehevyan*], and:** That **they wish [*titzviyan*],** referring to other women. **And he should extend the *vav* of *teirukhin* and the *vav* of *shevukin*, as** otherwise, the *vav* may be mistaken for a *yod*, and those words spelled with a *yod* **indicate divorced [*terikhin*] and left [*shevikin*]** women. In other words, it will change the meaning from describing the document as one that divorces or sends away to describing the women as divorced and sent away.


###### Gittin 85b:13
[Gittin 85b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:13)

וְלוֹרְכֵיהּ לְוָיו ״דְּכַדּוּ״; דְּמַשְׁמַע ״וּכְדִי״. וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב ״לְאִיתְנְסָבָא״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע לָא יִתְנַסְבָא, אֶלָּא ״לְהִתְנְסָבָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in the clause: And now [*ukhedu*] I have dismissed and ousted and divorced you, **he should extend the *vav* of *khedu*, as** otherwise, the *vav* may be mistaken for a *yod*, and spelled with a *yod* it **indicates: And with nothing [*ukhedi*]. And** in the expression: To go marry [*lehitnasseva*] **he should not write *le’itnasseva*** with an *alef* and a *yod*, **as,** if he leaves space between the letters it will **indicate: Will not get married [*la yitnasseva*]. Rather,** he should write ***lehitnasseva*,** with a *heh* and without a *yod*, so there will be no room for this error.


###### Gittin 85b:14
[Gittin 85b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:14)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בָּעֵינַן ״וְדֵן״, אוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן ״וְדֵן״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before them: Do we need** to write: **And this** that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish, **or do we not need** to write the clause beginning with the words: **And this?** Is the *halakha* in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or the Rabbis?


###### Gittin 85b:15
[Gittin 85b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאַתְקֵין רָבָא בְּגִיטֵּי: ״אֵיךְ פְּלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנְיָא, פְּטַר וְתָרֵיךְ יָת פְּלוֹנִיתָא אִינְתְּתֵיהּ, דַּהֲוָת אִינְתְּתֵיהּ מִן קֳדָם דְּנָא – מִיּוֹמָא דְּנַן וּלְעָלַם״. וְאִילּוּ ״וְדֵן״ לָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a solution, **as Rava instituted** the following wording **in bills of divorce:** We saw **how so-and-so, son of so-and-so, dismissed and divorced so-and-so, his wife, who was his wife from beforehand, from this day and forever. But he did not state** the clause beginning with the words: **And this.**


###### Gittin 85b:16
[Gittin 85b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:16)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, כּוּלְּהוּ מִי קָאָמַר? אֶלָּא בָּעֵינַן, הָכָא נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this solution: **And according to your reasoning, did** Rava **state all** of the other necessary clauses of a bill of divorce? **Rather, we need** to write them even though they were not mentioned explicitly in Rava’s formulation. **Here too, we need** to write the clause beginning with the words: And this, even though it was not mentioned specifically by Rava.


###### Gittin 85b:17
[Gittin 85b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:17)

״מִיּוֹמָא דְּנַן״ – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes the wording instituted by Rava: The expression: **From this day,** is written **to the exclusion of** the statement **of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The date** written **in a document proves** when **it** takes effect, and therefore it is not necessary to write the expression: From this day. Rava added this expression to take the opposite opinion into account.


###### Gittin 85b:18
[Gittin 85b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/85b:18)

״וּלְעָלַם״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The expression: **And forever,**