Divorcing by Handing Over a Talmud

I just saw an interesting thread on Twitter, about the end of the Munich 95 manuscript:

It seems to be a copy of a real get, with the date, names, city included. What is interesting about this is the very real case in Gittin about a handing over a sefer Torah. Thus, on 19b and on:

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּעָל לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא, שְׁקַל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה יְהַב לָהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, וַאֲמַר לַהּ: הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ. אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לְמַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם מֵי מֵילִין – אֵין מֵי מֵילִין עַל גַּבֵּי מֵי מֵילִין;

It is told: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue, took a Torah scroll, and gave it to his wife. And he said to her: This is your bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: For what is there to be concerned for it? If you say that there should be a concern due to gall water, that perhaps he wrote a bill of divorce on the outside of the Torah scroll’s parchment with gall water, and this writing is now invisible, gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. Since parchment for the Torah scroll is processed with gall water, it is not possible to write something with gall water that will remain permanently on the parchment itself. Therefore, there is no concern that he wrote a bill of divorce on the parchment.

אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּרִיתוּת דְּאִית בַּהּ – הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ, וְלֵיכָּא.

If there is a concern that the Torah scroll can effect a divorce due to the verses concerning severance of marriage that there are in it, as it is written: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1), this is also not problematic, since it is required, as it states: “And he writes her.” This indicates that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, i.e., it must be written for the express intent of being used to effect divorce between this specific man and this specific woman, and this is not so in the case of a Torah scroll.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אַקְדֵּים וִיהַב לֵיהּ זוּזָא לְסָפְרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא; הָא בָּעֵינַן ״שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ״, וְלֵיכָּא.

And if you would say that there is reason to be concerned that perhaps he first gave a dinar to the scribe at the outset, when he wrote the Torah scroll, and told him to write the verses discussing divorce for his wife’s sake, isn’t there a need for other things to be written in a bill of divorce as well, as the mishna (80a) teaches: If the scribe changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The validity of a bill of divorce depends upon these details being written, and they are not in the Torah scroll.

וְרַב יוֹסֵף מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? שֶׁאֵין מֵי מֵילִין עַל גַּבֵּי מֵי מֵילִין.

The Gemara asks: But if so, what is Rav Yosef teaching us with his statement? It seems obvious that there is no reason why a Torah scroll could be used as a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: He is teaching us that gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. The novel idea is that there is no need to be concerned that the scribe wrote a bill of divorce in gall water on the outside of the Torah scroll.

I have written in the past about this,

Intent for the Tofes or Toref? (article summary)

namely how according to Rabbi Eleazar, maybe the tofes, which perhaps is the phrase saying “Behold you are permitted to (marry) any man” is sufficient, or the extended portion which matches the pasuk, וְדֵן דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִינַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּירוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכֹל גְּבַר דִּיתִצְבִּיִּין matching וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙ : וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּיתֽוֹ וְיָצְאָ֖ה מִבֵּית֑וֹ וְהָלְכָ֖ה וְהָיְתָ֥ה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵֽר.

Surely all of this is already present in the Munich manuscript! Or even better, this get is part of the miscellany. What if Eliav bar Rabbi Yosef actually gave it to his wife Rivkah bar Rabbi Avraham? And told the sofer to have in mind? Presumably it would have worked.

He could not cut this get off from the rest of the gemara, because that would be an improper interruption between וְכָ֨תַב and וְנָתַ֣ן…