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 Masada get:1
mGit 9:3

Masada get

The word for word correspondence of the Mishnah with a documentary text
more 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 whole2 and its remarkable similarity to the traditional medieval get, and then we will consider the relationship to R. Yehudahs
body of the get (mGit 9:3). For our purposes we will use the text quoted
in Rashis commentary for the medieval get.

Mur 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.
2
For 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.

176
mGit 9:3 Cod Kaufmann4

Shamma Friedman
Rashi, bGit 85b3

Masada get

1 1


...



TTO5
)(][
] [)(

2a

2a

)( 2b 2b

3a 3a

3b 3b


.
3c

An English translation of the modern get reads:

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 willingly
consent, 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 freedom, in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel.
4
Let 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).

The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards

177

The Masada get was 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 is
fitting.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 astounding.
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.8 This paragraph, both in the Masada get (=M) and rabbinic get (=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

Yardeni, Textbook 2:57.

Corresponding 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, JSS 2 (1957) 3361.
8
Regarding 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).
9
M: ; R: . Cf. below: )= (
in XHev/Se 13.
7

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.11 In R
on the other hand, from this day and for all time is attached to a warranty
clause (3a) which follows the operative section of the get, no longer indicating that the marital tie is severed for eternity, but guaranteeing that no one
can ever challenge [her status as a divorcee].12
bGit 85b Cod. Leningrad13

' '

Masada get

...
'

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 operative clause. We can define these as two clauses in terms of modern conceptualization, but we must admit that in this ancient document the syntactical

10

On the determination that this is the original reading, see my Talmud Ha-Igud Gittin IX (Jerusalem, forthcoming), ad loc.
11
On the cultural history of this phrase see my study on in Friedman,
Terminology.
12
Thus 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.
13
Rav laid down the formula of the get thus: [We are witnesses] how So-and-so son of Soand-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 (London 1948).

The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards

179

juncture is predicated on using the verbs dismiss and divorce as the operative verbs of the action itself, and not merely naming the action.14 Thus it
would be better to translate: [hereby] dismiss and divorce).
However, in the rabbinic get the two clauses are clearly separated. The
separation actually appears to be a conscious rewriting of an inherited formula 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 repetition 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 of gittin: The waw of should also be lengthened
so as not to read which means in vain. (bGit 85b).16 In 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 Masada, the Mishnah and the medieval rabbinic get:
. It is part of the ancient common Aramaic formulary, as found in
Elephantine in the 5th century BCE and she shall go whither she wishes
() .17 In style 2b is closer to the Elephantine text than to the
biblical and ANE parallels. However, in contrast with the Elephantine formula, 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 a Jew. 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).

14

Yardenis translation dismissing and divorcing, although awkward in English, provides a

faithful translation of the original, by using a present participle for the Aramaic , participles which, as in Hebrew, are technically nouns, but came to serve as present tense verbs.
15
See supra n. 4.
16
( " ' Cod. St. Petersburg - RNL Evr. I 187).
17
B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2 (Jerusalem 1989), B2.6 (pp. 3033); cf. B3.8 (pp. 7883).
18
In 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.

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. They
do 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.20 Clause 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 a schlussklausel. In Masada (M 3a) ... contains
what was to become the quintessential schlusslkausel according to the law
of Moses and the Jews () , the elegant marker of a documents conclusion.21 In the traditional get appears even after the auxiliary warranty clause R 3a. In other words, R 3a was incorporated to precede 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 Masada get, R. Yehudah uses the same ancient text,
but reworks it at the same time. In the Masada get (and R) is clearly
what the Greeks call a or subscription, speaking about the document from the outside, and pointing to it (and this).22
R. Yehudah sought to convert the into an operative clause by
moving 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).

20

As to the relative placing of the clauses in the two documents, see below in detail.
See M. Kister, : The History of a Legal Religious Formula, in D. Boyarin 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.
22
Falk postulated that this language was originally and oral declaration that accompanied the
serving of the get. 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.
21

The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards

Mishnah

181

Masada

)(][ ]

[)(
)(

By introducing ... into the operative clause,23 R. Yehudah makes it literally the body of the get () , as it is called in the Mishnah. This
serves to emphasize, in the body of the get itself, 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 medieval gittin (and modern, for that matter), quite within the Masada style.
Finally, one further point. In other studies we have suggested that a rabbinic schlussklausel of the type constitutes the executors assuming obligation to the transaction.25 Thus, while being a closing formula, it
has crucial legal importance.26 It is thus understandable why it is this summation clause that is quoted in XHev/Se 13,27 a divorce quittance, acknowledgment by the wife that her former husband is not indebted to her,28
for whose reading and reconstruction I propose:

23

Of course one can consider the possibility that reversing the order enabled the newly combined clause to serve as a miniature get in its own right, with R. Yehudah still viewing it as a
schlussklausel. This would have his statement in its original form not addressing the body of the
get at all.
24
And compare the extant Aramaic targumim, suggested by many when dealing with the language 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 Studies 1112: Avi Hurvitz Festschrift (Hebrew; Jerusalem 2008), 26981 (English summary, XXIIXXIII).
26
I also entertain the idea that this is what is meant by the talmudic term toref ().
27
Yardeni, Textbook 1:134.
28
J. 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

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 Yehudahs name reverses the order of practically identical language in the Masada get, in order to convert a subscription into the main operative clause.
2. This attempted reform failed to affect the medieval rabbinic get, 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.
29
Continuing further in the line argued by A. Schremer, Divorce in Papyrus eelim 13 Once
Again: a Reply to Tal Ilan, HTR 91 (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 Initiated by Women in Ancient Jewish Halakhah, [Hebrew] Zion 63 [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 demonstrative is unattested in Judean Desert documents. D. I. Brewer (Jewish Women Divorcing Their
Husbands in Early Judaism: The Background to Papyrus eelim 13, HTR 92 [1999] 349357, at
351) 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 spellings like ?If is , with for [], could not be , with for []?

The Jewish Bill of DivorceFrom Masada Onwards

183

clause from the operative clause; both documents adding separate guarantee
clauses.