Q&A: The Issue of Lacking Severance
The Issue of Lacking Severance
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the discussion of lacking severance in tractate Gittin 21b, it is explained according to Rabbenu Tam (at the end of Tosafot) that it is permitted to cut off a small amount from a bill of divorce, and this is learned from the law of cutting off the date, as explained earlier on 17b. There the issue is a rabbinic enactment: if a bill of divorce without a date is valid, then why did the Sages institute including a date at all? After all, a deceiver could, after giving it, in order to cover for his sister’s daughter, cut off the date. And the Talmud answers: we are not concerned about such a deceiver. Rabbenu Tam says that from the fact that the Talmud did not answer that if they see the bill of divorce cut they will disqualify it because of lacking severance, it follows that it is permitted to cut off a small amount. But anyone who looks there will see that the concern is specifically about cutting off the date after the giving, and if so, that is why the Talmud did not answer in terms of lacking severance?
Answer
Offhand, I do not see a difference.
Even after the giving, they would disqualify the bill of divorce, and they would not believe her that she was divorced, and certainly not regarding the date of the divorce. The date is usually relevant to discussions that take place after the giving.
Discussion on Answer
When the bill of divorce comes before the religious court, that always happens after the giving, and then the religious court discusses the legal status of the divorce, which already took place earlier. Rabbenu Tam says that if the bill of divorce reaches the religious court after the giving and they see that the date was cut off, they should have to disqualify the divorce, because the assumption is that the date was already cut off at the time of the divorce, when the bill of divorce was given. And even if it was cut off afterward, the whole rabbinic enactment of including a date in bills of divorce is because of concern for covering up or because of purchasers, and these are discussions that usually take place after the giving. Therefore, when they disqualify a cut bill of divorce, we are talking about a bill of divorce that is seen to be cut even after the giving. It should be remembered that this is a rabbinic disqualification. The claim is not that the bill of divorce is void because the date was cut off.
I didn’t understand your answer.