## Sifrei Devarim Paragraph 269

###### Sifrei Devarim 269:1
[Sifrei Devarim 269:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:1)

**וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו**, מִכָּן הָיוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָּהּ עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: **כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר**. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַּבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: **דָּבָר**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
(Devarim 24:1) "and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, for he found in her a thing of nakedness, (then he shall write her a scroll of divorce.") Beth Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find in her a thing of nakedness (i.e., that she had fornicated). And Beth Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his meal, it being written "for he found in her a *thing* of nakedness."


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:2
[Sifrei Devarim 269:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:2)

אָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִם נֶאֱמַר **דָּבָר** לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר **עֶרְוַת**, וְאִם נֶאֱמַר **עֶרְוַת** לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר **דָּבָר**? שֶׁאִם נֶאֱמַר **דָּבָר** וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר **עֶרְוַת**, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הַיּוֹצְאָה מִפְּנֵי דָבָר תְּהֵא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהַיּוֹצֵאָה מִפְּנֵי עֶרְוָה לֹא תְהֵא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, אִם נֶאֶסְרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָהּ לֹא תְהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִן הָאָסוּר לָהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **עֶרְוַת** **וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר**. וְאִם נֶאֱמַר **עֶרְוַת** וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר **דָּבָר**, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי עֶרְוָה תֵּצֵא, מִפְּנֵי דָבָר לֹא תֵּצֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **דָּבָר** **וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: But is it not written "a thing"? Beth Shammai: But is it not written "nakedness"? Beth Hillel: If it were written "nakedness," but not "a thing," I would say, because of nakedness she is divorced, but because of "a thing" she is not divorced. It is, therefore, written "a thing … (2) and she shall go out of his house." And if it were written "a thing," and it were not written "nakedness," I would say: If she is divorced because of "a thing," she is permitted to remarry, but if she is divorced because of nakedness, she is not permitted to remarry. And do not wonder at this, for if she is forbidden (by the divorce) from one who was permitted to her, should she not be forbidden to one (i.e., a new husband), who was forbidden to her? It must, therefore, be written "… nakedness … and she shall go out of his house and she may be to another man."


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:3
[Sifrei Devarim 269:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:3)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: **וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
R. Akiva says: (He may divorce her) even if he finds another more beautiful than she, it being written "if she does not find favor in his eyes."


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:4
[Sifrei Devarim 269:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:4)

**וְכָתַב לָהּ**, לִשְׁמָהּ. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: כָּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק כּוּלַּ׳ מַתְנִי׳.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"then he shall write to her": in her name — whence they ruled. Any *get* not written in the name of *that* woman is invalid. How so? If one passed by in the marketplace and heard a scribe saying "This man divorces this woman from this place," and he said "That's *my* name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a *get*. More so — If he wrote (a *get*) to divorce his wife, and he changed his mind, and a man of his city found it and said "That's *my* name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a *get*. More so, if he had two wives with the same name, if he wrote it to divorce the tall one, he may not use it to divorce the short one. More so, if he told the scribe to write it, thinking "I will use it to divorce whichever I wish," it is invalid as a *get*.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:5
[Sifrei Devarim 269:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:5)

**וְכָתַב**, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ, בְּסַם וּבְסִיקְרָא בְּקוֹמוֹס וּבְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **וְכָתַב** מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"then he shall write": This tells me only of ink. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) dye, rock-lichen, resin, and vitriol? From "then he shall *write*" — with anything.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:6
[Sifrei Devarim 269:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:6)

**סֵפֶר**, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר, מִנַּיִן עֲלֵי קָנִים עֲלֵי אֱגוֹז עֲלֵי זַיִת עֲלֵי חָרוּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **וְנָתַן** מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר **סֵפֶר**? מַה סֵּפֶר מְיֻחָד שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל קַיָּמָא, יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר: מַה סֵּפֶר מְיֻחָד שֶׁהוּא תָּלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע, יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁמְּחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"a scroll": This tells me only of a scroll. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) reed, nut, olive, and carob stalks? From "and he shall place it into her hand" — in any event. If so, why is it written "a scroll"? Just as a scroll is characterized by (relative) permanence, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a *get*) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Just as a scroll is characterized by being unrooted to the ground, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a *get*) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:7
[Sifrei Devarim 269:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:7)

**כְּרִיתוּת**, שֶׁיְּהֵא כְּרִיתוּת. מִכָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ לְעוֹלָם, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתִּי יַיִן לְעוֹלָם, אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתִּי יַיִן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לִפְלוֹנִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. לְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נִכְנְסוּ אַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים לְהָשִׁיב עַל דְּבָרָיו: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"a scroll of '*krithuth*'": something that cuts off completely — whence it is ruled: If one says to his wife: Here is your *get* on condition that you never again go to your father's house; on condition that you never again drink wine — this is not *krithuth* (in that there is no stage in which complete severance is effected.) (If he says:) on condition that you do not go to your father's house until thirty days from now; on condition that you do not drink wine, until thirty days from now — it *is krithuth*. If one divorces his wife and says "You are permitted to everyone except so-and-so" — R. Eliezer permits it and the sages forbid it. After the death of R. Eliezer, four elders entered to dispute his words: R. Tarfon, R. Yossi Haglili, R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:8
[Sifrei Devarim 269:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:8)

נַעֲנָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְאָמַר: הָלְכָה וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וּמֵת בְּלֹא וָלָד, הֵיאַךְ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת? לֹא נִמְצָא מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה **כְּרִיתוּת**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
R. Tarfon opened and said: If she went and married the brother of the man to whom she had been forbidden (by the *get*), and he died without children, how could she become the *yevamah* of his brother? Would he (her first husband) not be making a condition against what is written in the Torah (i.e., the mitzvah of *yibum*)? And if anyone makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is not valid — so that this is not *krithuth*.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:9
[Sifrei Devarim 269:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמֻּתֶּרֶת לְאֶחָד וַאֲסוּרָה לְאַחֵר? אֶלָּא מֻתֶּרֶת לְאֶחָד מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם, אֲסוּרָה לְאֶחָד אֲסוּרָה לְכָל אָדָם. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה **כְּרִיתוּת**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
R. Yossi Haglili said: Where do we find in the Torah that she is permitted to one and forbidden to another? But if she is permitted to one, she is permitted to all men, and if she is forbidden to one, she is forbidden to all men — so that this is not *krithuth*.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:10
[Sifrei Devarim 269:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: **כְּרִיתוּת** – דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: "*Krithuth*" — something that severs (*completely*) between himself and her. R. Yossi said: I subscribe to the words of R. Elazar b. Azaryah.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:11
[Sifrei Devarim 269:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:11)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: וְכִי בַּמֶּה הֶחְמִירָה תּוֹרָה, בִּגְרוּשָׁה אוֹ בְאַלְמָנָה? חֲמוּרָה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאַלְמָנָה. מָה אַלְמָנָה קַלָּה נֶאֶסְרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָהּ, גְּרוּשָׁה חֲמוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִן הָאָסוּר לָהּ? הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה **כְּרִיתוּת**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
R. Akiva says: On what basis was the Torah stringent vis-à-vis (forbidding) a divorcée to a Cohein or a married woman to all men? (It must be that the ban against) a married woman is more stringent than that of a divorcée (to a Cohein). Now if a divorcée, of lesser stringency, is forbidden (to one who was once permitted to her), then a married woman, of greater stringency, how much more so should she be forbidden (to one who was once permitted to her [if her divorce is only conditional])? — so that this is not *krithuth*.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:12
[Sifrei Devarim 269:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:12)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: הָלְכָה וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאֶחָד וְהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה וָמֵת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת לָזֶה, לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בָנָיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵרִים? הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה **כְּרִיתוּת**.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
Variantly: If she went and married another and he had children from her, and then she were widowed or divorced and married this one (to whom she was prohibited by the conditional divorce), would her children by the first not be found to be *mamzerim* (bastards, the divorce being retroactively invalidated)? — so that this is not *krithuth*.


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:13
[Sifrei Devarim 269:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:13)

**בְּיָדָהּ**, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּיָדָהּ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת גַּגָּהּ חֲצֵרָהּ וְחֻרְבָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: **וְנָתַן** מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר **בְּיָדָהּ**? מַה יָּדָהּ מְיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא רְשׁוּתָהּ, כָּךְ כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רְשׁוּתָהּ.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"into her hand": This tells me only of "her hand." Whence do I derive (the same for) her garden, her courtyard, and her enclosure? From "and he shall place" — anywhere. If so, why is it written "her hand"? Just as her hand is distinct in being her domain, so all that is thus characterized (is valid for the placing of the *get*).


###### Sifrei Devarim 269:14
[Sifrei Devarim 269:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sifrei%20Devarim/r/269:14)

**וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ**, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ בְּיָדָהּ מְשַׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְכוּ׳ מַתְנִי׳, אָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה, אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאַתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וְכוּ׳ מַתְנִי׳.

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"and he shall send her away from his house": He must tell her "This is your *get*." From here they ruled: If one threw a *get* to his wife and said "Pick up this writ," or if she found it behind him and read it and found it to be her *get*, it is not a (valid) *get* until he says to her "This is your *get*."