Talmud for Eruvin 1:7

בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין לְחָיַיִן, אֲפִלּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹסֵר. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם גּוֹלֵל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וְכוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי פוֹסֵל:

Anything may be used as a lechi, even a living thing. R. Yossi forbids it, [fearing that it might die and no longer be ten tefachim high, and people, not noticing it, continue to rely upon it.] And it (a living thing) renders unclean by reason of golel ("top-stone"). [If he made it the golel of a grave, it always renders unclean if touched by a man or vessels, as a tent over a dead body, even if it were taken from there, it being written (Numbers 19:16): "And all that touch on the face of the field one slain by the sword, etc.", which is expounded to include golel and dofek (grave-frame). "Golel" is the grave cover.] R. Meir rules it clean. [The rationale pf R. Meir: Any partition which stands by virtue of a living spirit is not a partition. This is not the halachah.] And divorces may be written upon it (an animal). R. Yossi Haglili rules it unfit, [it being written (Deuteronomy 24:1): "Then he shall write her a scroll of divorce." Just as a scroll has no living spirit, so, all that has no living spirit (is valid as a divorce). And the rabbis? (They would say:) If it were written: "And he shall write to her in a scroll," it would be as you say. But now that it is written: "He shall write her a sefer," sippur devarim, "relating of words" (of divorce) is what is intended. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. And if he wrote her a divorce on the horn of a cow and gave her the cow, in which instance it does not require cutting off after being written, it is kasher. But if he did not give her the cow, but only the horn, since he must cut if off, she is not divorced with it.]

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin

“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.!

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse