Source: http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_20.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:51:31+00:00

Document:
water.1 Shall we say that the scroll is itself a Get because of the portion it contains relating to 'cutting off'?2 We require that it should be written for that woman specifically,3 which is not here the case. If you should plead that possibly he gave, beforehand, a fee4 to the scribe [to write the passage in the scroll specifically for her], this also is unavailing, since we require [the insertion5 of] his name and her name, the name of his town and the name of her town, which we do not [find here]. What does [then] R. Joseph teach us here?6 — That gall-nut water makes no writing on [a sheet treated with] gall-nut water.
Our Rabbis have taught: '[The Scripture says] And he shall write ["the writ of divorce"], which implies that he is not to grave it.' From this we would conclude that graving is not counted as writing. This, however, seems to be in contradiction with the following: A slave who produces a deed engraved on a tablet or a board is legally emancipated, but not if the writing is woven into a woman's headband or a piece of embroidery?20 — Said 'Ulla in the name of R. Eleazar: There is no contradiction. Graving is invalid if the letters are in relief,21 but valid if they are hollowed out.22 [You say that if the letters are] in relief it is not [valid]. Does not this contradict the following? 'The writing [on the High priest's plate]23 was not sunk in but projected like that on gold coins.' And is not [the inscription on] gold denarii in relief? — [It was] like [the inscription on] gold denarii and yet not like it. [It was] like it in the fact that it projected, but it was unlike it because there [in gold denarii the metal is hollowed] round the letters,24 but here [in the High Priest's plate] the letters themselves25 were hollowed out.
At that time all parchment scrolls of the Law were treated in this way. Hence there was no proper writing from the outset, and consequently no Get.
Lit., 'he shall write for her' (which means) 'in her name'.
[his rendering omits the word [H] which is inserted in the text only inadvertently as a quotation from infra 80a; v. Rashi.
Seeing that all this is obvious.
The four letters Yod, He, Waw, He.
The five letters Yod, He, Daleth, Waw, He.
Ex. XV, 2. The words are expounded to signify. 'Beautify thyself before Him in the performance of religious duties'.
By paying the scribe's fee, which she was required to do according to the Rabbinical rule, v. B.B. 168a.
According to the principle. 'The Beth din has power to expropriate'. V. infra 36b.
E.g.. a leaf of a tree of 'orlah (v. Glos.). Such things had naturally no monetary value.
E.g., a pile of olive leaves may be bought for lying on or for feeding cattle. The Mishnah affords then no support to the message from Eretz Israel.
Lit., 'it was not praised'.
Because when it was not approved at first, Levi took the trouble to obtain additional authority.
Lit., 'if he carved out the interior (of the plate)'.
Lit., 'if he carved out the thighs (of the letters)'.
Lit., 'the thighs'. They were pressed forward from the back and so projected in front.
If it scrapes out the metal round the letters, the use of it is not writing; but it is if the letters are formed by compression.
it does not write, and [for the plate] 'writing' was required?1 — It was like [the inscription on] gold denarii and yet not like it. It was like it in the fact that it stood out, but not like it in the fact that there [in a coin] the pressure is applied on the same side [as the inscription], but here [in the plate] it was from the other side.
Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man writes a Get on a plate of gold and says to his wife, 'Receive herewith your Get and receive herewith your kethubah', what is the ruling? — He replied: Both her Get and her kethubah have been legally received by her. [Raba] thereupon raised an objection. [We have been taught,] If a man says, 'Receive herewith your Get and the rest can go to your kethubah', the Get has been legally received by her and the rest goes to the kethubah. Now the reason is that there is something over, but otherwise not? — No. The same rule applies even if there is nothing over, and what this [statement] teaches us is that even if there is something over, if he tells her [to take that in payment of her kethubah] she takes it, but if not, not. For what reason? — Because [in that case the rest] is [reckoned merely as] the margin of the Get.
Because he has to 'give' her the writ, and here there is no giving.
Because a gift which is made conditionally on its being returned is still counted a gift.
And in this case he makes it into several.
I.e., by long letters like the final nun, which obliterate the spaces between the lines.
And therefore it is no Get.
Who read it, and who could testify in case of falsification.
Who says that the witnesses to delivery make the Get effective.
Which Raba put to him.
Because he was speaking of the case where there were no witnesses to delivery.
And so could not be effaced.
Lit., 'those kept in folds', because they are liable to stray; hence their being found in a certain man's possession is not presumptive evidence that he is the owner, and the same applies to a slave, v. B.B. 36a.
Of such a nature where the transfer is a mere legal fiction designed to place the tablet in the temporary ownership of the husband to enable him to write the Get on it. Consequently the Get is not valid since it must be written on material belonging to the husband.
R. Judah b. Baba. V. 'Ed. II, 3.
[H] (Jer. XXXII, 10). which is taken to mean 'a document written by the transferor'. V. Kid. 26a.
And they returned them to him. So here we may say that even if the wife does not intend to leave the tablet in the husband's hands permanently, yet for the time being she has given it to him, and he can therefore 'give' it to her as a Get.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V.