Introduction
This section continues to deal with the issue of the get. To recall the rabbis don’t read the word "sefer" as being restricted to a book. The person can write the get on any material he so choose, even an animal. While R. Yose the Galilean had an interpretation of the word "and he wrote," the rabbis who disagree with him do not. That is where our section picks up.
ורבנן, האי וכתב מאי דרשי ביה? – ההוא מיבעי להו: בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתגרשת בכסף. סלקא דעתך אמינא: הואיל ואיתקש יציאה להויה, מה הויה בכסף – אף יציאה בכסף, קא משמע לן.
And how do the rabbis expound the words, "And he writes"? They need that [text for to teach that] with writing she becomes divorced, but she does not become divorced with money.
Lest I would have said, since her going out [from the married state] is compared to her entry into it just as her entry is with money, so is her exit, therefore it teaches us [this].
The rabbis use the word "and he writes" to teach that divorce is only done through writing and not through any other means. We might have thought that since the Torah compares marriage with divorce (see Deuteronomy 24:2) just as she can be betrothed through money, so too she can be divorced through money. Therefore, the word "and he writes" is read as emphasizing that she is divorced by a written document and not by money.
ורבי יוסי הגלילי האי סברא מנא ליה? – מספר כריתת נפקא ליה: ספר כורתה, ואין דבר אחר כורתה –
And from where does R. Yose the Galilean derive this? From [the words], a scroll of divorce ; the scroll divorces and nothing else.
The previous comment now begins a sort of "midrashic chain" whereby each position must derive each halakhah from some place in the Torah and each position must use each word of the Torah available. R. Yose the Galilean agrees that a woman can be divorced only through writing and not through money. But the word "And he writes" was already used up by another midrash. So where does he derive this halakhah from? From the words "a scroll of divorce." The word used for divorce can also mean "cutting off." Thus to R. Yose the Galilean a scroll severs the bonds of marriage but nothing else does.
ואידך: ההוא מיבעי ליה לדבר הכורת בינו לבינה. כדתניא: הרי זה גיטיך על מנת שלא תשתי יין. ועל מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם – אין זה כריתות, כל שלשים יום – הרי זה כריתות. –
And the others? They need [this terminology to teach that the get must be] one which severs them [completely], as it has been taught. [If a man say,] Here is your get on condition that you do not drink wine, or go to your father’s house ever, it is not a proper severance.
For thirty days, it is a severance.
The rabbis now need a halakhah to be attached to the word "sefer keritut" which we have translated as "a scroll of divorce." The word "keritut" can also mean to "sever." The rabbis read this word to mean that divorce must completely sever the ties between the husband and wife. He cannot make the divorce contingent upon her refraining from doing something such as drinking wine or going to her father’s house. Note that these might be things that caused him to want to divorce her in the first place. She drank wine and he was bothered by that. He didn’t like her father, or her going to visit her father’s house. The rabbis rule that the husband cannot control her in divorce in any way even in the ways that led him to want to divorce her.
However, he may make the get contingent upon a temporary condition that she not do such an act for thirty days. Since this condition will disappear, the divorce is valid.
ואידך: מכרת כריתת נפקא.
And the other? He deduces it from [the use of the form] kerituth [instead of that of] karet.
How does R. Yose the Galilean derive the halakhah that divorce must sever the ties when he has already used up the word "keritut" for a different halakhah? The answer is that he derives it from the plural form. The Torah calls the get a "sefer keritut" which is the plural (or some sort of expanded form) of the word for "karet" to sever. This allows him to use the word twice.
ואידך: כרת כריתות לא דרשי.
And the others? They do not expound [the difference between] keritut and karet.
Of course, this chain has to end at some point (I would hope). So the Talmud ends by stating that the other rabbis do not derive any meaning from the double form. Otherwise they would have to find a new halakhah and the argument would continue.