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.


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).


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.


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).


5/9


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.


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.


7/9


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


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 []?


9/9


clause from the operative clause; both documents adding separate guarantee

clauses.