Download - The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
1/9
Shamma Friedman
The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards
This study addresses a rare opportunity to compare various forms of the same text
as it appears in Judean desert deeds, in the Mishnah, and in the medieval rabbinic
documentary formulary. Following this trail reveals astounding continuity of the
basic structure and wording of the Jewish bill of divorce (get), alongside certain
evolutionary trends, while the mishnaic reference marks a failed attempt at major
reform.
The Aramaic divorce clause cited by R. Yehudah in mGit 9:3 was dramatically
prefigured in the Masadaget:1
mGit 9:3 Masadaget
.
.
The word for word correspondence of the Mishnah with a documentary textmore than a century older is remarkable. We will soon see that when we
include another talmudic text the correspondence is even broader.
First, we will take a close look at the structure and phraseology of the
Masada document as a whole2and its remarkable similarity to the tradition-
al medievalget, and then we will consider the relationship to R. Yehudahs
body of theget (mGit 9:3). For our purposes we will use the text quoted
in Rashis commentary for the medievalget.
1Mur 19 (P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabbaat (DJD 2; Oxford
1961) 1049. The clause is also quoted in XHev/Se 13; see below. On the use of this siglum for
this document from the Seiyal collection, and the alternatives P. Hev 13 or eelim 13, see the
discussion of Hanan Eshel in this volume, A Survey of The Refuge Caves and Their Legal
Documents, 10555.2For the technical transcription, see Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean
Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material (2 vols.; Jerusalem 2000)
1:131.
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
2/9
176 Shamma Friedman
MasadagetRashi, bGit 85b3mGit 9:3 Cod Kaufmann4
1
...
2a
2b
3a
3b
3c
1
TTO5
2a
2b
3a
3b
.
])[(
)(][
)(
3An English translation of the moderngetreads:
On the # day of the week, the # day of the month of x in the year # from the creation of the
world according to the calendar reckoning by we are accustomed to count here, in the city x which
is located on the river x and situated near wells of water, I, pn, the son of pn, who today am
present in the city x which is located on the river x and situated near wells of water, do willinglyconsent, being under no restraint, to release, to set free and put aside you, my wife pn daughter of
pn, who are today in the city of x, which is located on the river x, and situated near wells of water,
who has been my wife from before.
Thus do I set free, release you, and put you aside, in order that you may have permission and
the authority over yourself to go and marry any man you may desire.
No person may hinder you from this day onward, and you are permitted to every man.
This shall be for you from me a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of free-
dom, in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel.4Let this be from me your writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that
you may marry whatsoever man you wish (translation adapted from H. Danby, The Mishnah
[London 1967]).5
TTO = transition to operative clause (see below).
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
3/9
The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards 177
The Masadagetwas translated into English by Yardeni as follows (I have
adapted the paragraph division and numbering to the form I will use in my
analysis), with some changes:
1 On the first of Marheshwan, year six, in Masada, of [my] own free will, this day, I,
Yehosef son of >N Yehosef son of< Nqsn, from ..., residing in Masada, dismiss and
divorce you, my wife, Miriam daughter of Yehonathan[ from ]hn/rb/klt, residing in
Masada, who has been my wife before this,
2 (so) that you are allowed to go by yourself and be the wife of any Jewish man
whom you desire.
3a And this shall be for you from me a document of divorce and a bill of dismissal
according to the law of[ Mos]es and the Jews.
3b All... and damages and ...[...]... to/for you according to the law will be established
and paid in quarterly rates (?).
3c And at (any) t[ime ]that you will tell me I shall exchange for you the deed as it isfitting.6
I suggest the following division and function of the paragraphs:
1. Date, place, introduction of principals, and definition of the transaction.7
2. Central operative clause.
3a. And this (). See below.
3b. Compensation for damage
3c. Husbands commitment to provide a new document upon request.
Paragraph 1: Introductory Clause
As to 13a, the correspondence to the medieval rabbinic get is often as-
tounding.
Paragraph 1 corresponds in general to what is called in mGit 3:2 the
(place) for the mans name, the womans name, and the date.8This para-
graph, both in the Masada get(=M) and rabbinicget(=R), concludes with
the identical language: who has been my wife from before this.9 This
reference to past time is complemented in M by the earlier indication that
the action takes place , this day. Both phrases appear in a short
6Yardeni, Textbook2:57.7Corresponding to the first three parts of Yarons schema of Elaphantine documents (except
definition of the transaction, which does not appear there). See pp. 3337 in R. Yaron, The
Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents,JSS2 (1957) 3361.8Regarding the opinion that this clause is to be identified with the section called , see my
study, , in S. Friedman, Talmudic Language and Terminology(Jerusalem, forthcoming).9M: ; R: . Cf. below: )(=
in XHev/Se 13.
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
4/9
178 Shamma Friedman
(partial?) formula for a get cited in bGit 85b as an enactment by Rav,10
however, in reverse order, and with this day not indicating present time,
but the starting point of future time, from this day and for all time.11In R
on the other hand, from this day and for all time is attached to a warrantyclause (3a) which follows the operative section of theget, no longer indicat-
ing that the marital tie is severed for eternity, but guaranteeing that no one
can ever challenge [her status as a divorcee].12
MasadagetbGit 85b Cod. Leningrad13
...
''
'
Paragraph 2: Central Operative Clause
In M, 1 and 2 are connected syntactically: that (functional equivalent of
- or ) serves to bridge between the introductory clause and the opera-
tive clause. We can define these as two clauses in terms of modern concep-
tualization, but we must admit that in this ancient document the syntactical
10On the determination that this is the original reading, see my Talmud Ha-IgudGittin IX(Je-
rusalem, forthcoming), ad loc.11 On the cultural history of this phrase see my study on in Friedman,
Terminology.12Thus from this day and for all time modifies (shall not protest). It can be argued
that it modifies the entire procedure, therefore , or that .is parenthetical
However, these would yield awkward and unnatural style. Furthermore, the entire idea of someone
protesting seems to be borrowed from guarantee clauses in sales transactions, and an anticipation
of challenge of the sale by the seller (where is often added) or his heirs. From this day and
for all time is already associated with guarantee clauses in a bill of sale from the Judean Desert,
134 CE (XHev/Se 8; Yardeni, 1, p. 67). The issue is discussed in detail in my Talmud Ha-Igud,
Gittin IX, sugya 8.13Rav laid down the formula of the getthus: [We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of So-
and-so dismissed and divorced So-and-so daughter of So-and-so who had been his wife before
now, from this day and for all time (translation adapted from I. Epstein, Soncino Talmud(Lon-
don 1948).
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
5/9
The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards 179
juncture is predicated on using the verbs dismiss and divorce as the oper-
ative verbs of the action itself, and not merely naming the action.14Thus it
would be better to translate: [hereby] dismiss and divorce).
However, in the rabbinic get the two clauses are clearly separated. Theseparation actually appears to be a conscious rewriting of an inherited for-
mula similar to the one which appears in M. The verbs in 1 are no longer
taken as operative, but only as defining the action to follow. This leads to a
repetition of these very same verbs in 2: I divorce and dismiss you. The
very repetition could serve as a marker of secondary composition, even if
we did not possess an older exemplar in which they are lacking! The repeti-
tion is accomplished by adding a new sub-clause, TTO15, opening with
= And now, preceding the original of 2b. At this point marks the
transition from preamble to body, like the modern: (Whereas[=1]), now
therefore [= 2].
The clause TTO beginning was already known by the Babylonian
Talmud, but only the first word is mentioned there, in a series of cautionary
exhortation to scribes ofgittin: The waw of should also be lengthened
so as not to read which means in vain. (bGit 85b).16In sources from
the geonic period the entire rabbinic get formula, including this clause, is
preserved.
The language of the operative clause 2b is practically identical in Masa-
da, the Mishnah and the medieval rabbinic get:
. It is part of the ancient common Aramaic formulary, as found inElephantine in the 5th century BCE and she shall go whither she wishes
).17In style 2b is closer to the Elephantine text than to the )
biblical and ANE parallels. However, in contrast with the Elephantine for-
mula, the Judean and mishnaic texts make explicit the fact that permission
is given specifically to marry,18 and the Masada get further specifies, to
marry aJew. Both issues are discussed in the Talmudic literature.19
In presenting 2a and 2b as an integrated unit, Masada and the rabbinic
get are absolutely identical. However, in the Mishnah sub-clause 2a does
not appear, and 2b is integrated in a different context (see below).
14Yardenis translation dismissing and divorcing, although awkward in English, provides a
faithful translation of the original, by using a present participle for the Aramaic -, parti
ciples which, as in Hebrew, are technically nouns, but came to serve as present tense verbs.15See supra n. 4.16 '" (Cod. St. Petersburg - RNL Evr. I 187).17B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2 (Je-
rusalem 1989), B2.6 (pp. 3033); cf. B3.8 (pp. 7883).18In the Mishnah and R most explicit, to be married ( :); M ... = literally to
be to, with the force of to be the wife of.19
See Friedman, Talmud Arukh, sugya 6.
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
6/9
180 Shamma Friedman
Paragraph 3: Closing Clauses
M 3b, 3c are standard warranty clauses appearing in many types of Judean
Desert contracts and do not have any specific connection to divorce. Theydo not appear in the rabbinic get, which, interestingly, introduces its own
warranty clause, common to other transactions in the rabbinic formulary,
but absent in the Masada get.20Clause 3a in the rabbinic get is a standard
warranty provision not specifically related to divorce, and in fact a direct
borrowing from sales or gift formulae. Thus it functionally parallels Masada
3b3c as added standard closing clauses, neither being integral to a bill of
divorce. Thus, both M and R have independently added separate warranty
clauses to the common base material. Discount these, and their similarity is
all the more striking.R 3b. ... is clearly aschlussklausel. In Masada (M 3a) ... contains
what was to become the quintessentialschlusslkauselaccording to the law
of Moses and the Jews ( -), the elegant marker of a docu
ments conclusion.21 In the traditional get appears even after the aux-
iliary warranty clause R 3a. In other words, R 3a was incorporated to pre-
cede in order to allow to remain in its original final position. M did
not take the trouble to preserve at the end of the document, and simply
added the two warranty clauses after it.
A century after the Masadaget, R. Yehudah uses the same ancient text,
but reworks it at the same time. In the Masada get (and R)
is clearlywhat the Greeks call a or subscription, speaking aboutthe docu-ment from the outside, andpointingto it (and this).22
R. Yehudah sought to convert the into an operative clause bymoving it forward and attaching it to the explicit permission to remarry in
2a, the original operative clause. Thus he reversed 2b and 3a as they appear
in the Masada get (eliminating of course, the signatory according to the
law of Moses and the Jews).
20As to the relative placing of the clauses in the two documents, see below in detail.21See M. Kister, : The History of a Legal Religious Formula, in D. Boya-
rin et al, eds.,Atara Lhaim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval Rabbinic Literature in Honor of
Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovski (Hebrew; Jerusalem 2000) 2028; Friedman, Terminology,
chapter 14, on the development of this phrase.22Falk postulated that this language was originally and oral declaration that accompanied the
serving of theget. There is little specific support for this conjecture, as the language and rhetoric is
the formal Aramaic of the documentary tradition, and the placing and function correspond to the
, see below.
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
7/9
The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards 181
MasadaMishnah
)]([
]
)(]
)(
By introducing ... into the operative clause,23R. Yehudah makes it liter-
ally the body of the get ( ), as it is called in the Mishnah. This
serves to emphasize, in the body of thegetitself, the documents fulfillment
of Deut 24:1 let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her
hand (
). The connection with Deut 24:1 is
certainly already alluded to in M, with being Aramaic
translations of .24 In M however, the allusion remains in the
schlussklausel, probably a Jewish addition to a traditional divorce document
borrowed from an ancient common Aramaic formulary. R. Yehudahs
enactment thus continues this effort by making the main Jewish connection,
an allusion to a verse in the Torah, part of the central body of the get.
As far as we can tell, R Yehudahs enactment, being a variation of the
ancient text, never became operative, neither before or after. His reform
failed to displace the standard Aramaic formulary, which remains in me-
dievalgittin(and modern, for that matter), quite within the Masada style.Finally, one further point. In other studies we have suggested that a rab-
binicschlussklauselof the type constitutes the executors assum-ing obligation to the transaction.25Thus, while being a closing formula, it
has crucial legal importance.26It is thus understandable why it is this sum-
mation clause that is quoted in XHev/Se 13,27 a divorce quittance, ac-
knowledgment by the wife that her former husband is not indebted to her, 28
for whose reading and reconstruction I propose:
23Of course one can consider the possibility that reversing the order enabled the newly com-
bined clause to serve as a miniature get in its own right, with R. Yehudah still viewing it as aschlussklausel. This would have his statement in its original form not addressing the body of the
getat all.24And compare the extant Aramaic targumim, suggested by many when dealing with the lan-
guage of the Mishnah. These issues are dealt with more extensively in Friedman, Talmud Ha-Igud
to mGit 9 3.25 , in Friedman, Terminology; idem, What is Qiyyum(Tosefta Bava Batra 1:4)? in S.
E. Fassberg and A. Mann, eds.,Language Studies1112:Avi Hurvitz Festschrift (Hebrew; Jerusa-
lem 2008), 26981 (English summary, XXIIXXIII).26 I also entertain the idea that this is what is meant by the talmudic term toref().27Yardeni, Textbook 1:134.28J. C. Greenfield, The Texts from Nahal eelim (Wadi Seiyal), in Julio Trebolle Barrera
and Luis Vegas Montaner, eds., The Madrid Qumran Congress; Proceedings of the International
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
8/9
182 Shamma Friedman
][
]
[
= that you have [said this] is to you from me a bill of divorce and release.29
Summary
The possibility of comparing three forms of a documentary text across a
wide chronological range is a rare opportunity, and in a case such as this
language which appears in Judean desert deeds, in the Mishnah, and in the
medieval rabbinic documentary formularyperhaps unique. Among our
findings:
1. The Aramaic body of the get cited in the Mishnah in Rabbi Yehu-
dahs name reverses the order of practically identical language in the Masa-
daget, in order to convert a subscription into the main operative clause.
2. This attempted reform failed to affect the medieval rabbinicget, which
is astoundingly similar to the Masada document in structure and language,
establishing an impressive example of culture continuity.
3 Once this similarity is established, the differences can be accounted for
by independent changes upon a common base text: the rabbinic doubling of
the verbs describing the action in order to clearly separate the introductory
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, March 1991 (2 vols; STDJ 1112; Leiden 1992) 2:66165;
XHev/Se 13 is described on p. 664.29Continuing further in the line argued by A. Schremer, Divorce in Papyrus eelim 13 Once
Again: a Reply to Tal Ilan, HTR91 (1998) 193202, at 1012. Schremer did not reconstruct ,
preferring a demonstrative (in place of , ostensibly due to space limitation. The same
vocalization should appear in Schremer, Papyrus Seelim 13 and the Question of Divorce In-
itiated by Women in Ancient Jewish Halakhah, [Hebrew]Zion63 [1998] 377390, at 387 n. 25).
However, now with Yardenis clear drawing available, perhaps even clearer than a photograph, I
doubt if it could be argued that the space on the line was insufficient. Furthermore, -as a demon
strative is unattested in Judean Desert documents. D. I. Brewer (Jewish Women Divorcing Their
Husbands in Early Judaism: The Background to Papyrus eelim 13,HTR92 [1999] 349357, at351) also supplies ) for the missing text ][... ), which he interprets in line with his theory.
(Even in terms of Schremers understanding, a full may not be necessary). The above quote
in context: [] ...
[ [ ] . This scribe exhibits unorthodox orthography, in[
that he often uses for final [], so that the underlined words are equivalent to ,, (cf.
l.11 ). In that this analysis seems convincing philologically, we must comment upon the
word which is the standard spelling for the masculine in these documents. (This occurrence
appears with the list of masculine forms in Yardeni, Textbook 2:87), while the feminine is
(Yardeni, ibid., 2:88), which would be expected. (Cf. T. Ilan, The Provocative Approach Once
Again: a Response to Adiel Schremer, HTR 91 [1998] 2034.). However, what can we demand
from a scribe who is most unorthodox in his orthographic representations of final [], with spel-
lings like
? If
is
, with
for [], could not
be
, with for []?
-
7/25/2019 The Jewish Bill of Divorce- From Masada
9/9
The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards 183
clause from the operative clause; both documents adding separate guarantee
clauses.