Introduction
In yesterday s sugya we encountered a midrash that reads the verse Then he shall write for her a bill of divorce as meaning that she can be divorced by a document but not by another means such as money. But R. Yose Hagalili uses the verse for another midrash. So from where does he derive the halakhah that a woman cannot be divorced by money.
ולרבי יוסי הגלילי דאפיק ליה להאי קרא לדרשא אחרינא שאינה מתגרשת בכסף מנא ליה אמר קרא (דברים כד, א) ספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה
Now, according to R. Yose Hagalili, who uses this verse [ then he shall write ], for a different purpose, how do we know that she cannot be divorced by money? The verse says, a bill of divorce a bill can divorce her, but nothing else can divorce her.
R. Yose Hagalili uses the next few words of the verse as the basis for the fact that she is divorced through writing but not through any other means.
ורבנן האי כריתות מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לדבר הכורת בינו לבינה כדתניא הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שלא תשתי יין על מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם אין זה כריתות כל שלשים יום הרי זה כריתות
Now, how do the rabbis use this word severing (divorce) ? They need it [to teach] that it must be something which [completely] cuts them off from each other. As it was taught: [If the husband says,] Behold, here is your divorce, on condition that you do not drink wine or do not visit your father’s house forever, this is not severing : for thirty days, this is severing.
The rabbis use the word divorce which can also be translated as severing as teaching that the husband cannot try to maintain control over her by offering a conditional divorce which limits her future behavior. Note, even if she agrees to the condition, this is not divorce. However, if there is a time limit, then the divorce is effective. She can disagree with the condition and simply not be divorced. But it is a possible means of divorce.
ורבי יוסי הגלילי מכרת כריתות קא נפקא ליה ורבנן כרת כריתות לא משמע להו
And R. Yose Hagalili [how does he derive this halakhah]?
He deduces it from the use of keritut instead of karet.
And the rabbis? They do not ascribe significance to karet, keritut.
The Talmud now asks, as it usually does, how does R. Yose Hagalili derive this last halakhah that divorce must sever the relationship. After all, he has already used that word to teach that she must be divorced with a document.
He can get two laws out of this verse because it is in the plural keritut instead of karet. The rabbis, however, do not make anything out of the use of the plural. This is also how the discussion can be completed.