GITIN 20 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1) A GET WRITTEN ON AN OBJECT OF "ISUREI HANA'AH"
QUESTIONS: The Gemara states that a Get written on an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah is valid. Although the Torah requires that the man "give" the Get to the woman, and something which is Asur b'Hana'ah has no value and thus there is nothing to "give," the Torah does not require that something of value be given but merely that the man give the Get to the woman.
(a) The Gemara later (20b) teaches that when a man gives a Get to his wife and says that the paper on which the Get is written should remain his, the Get does not take effect. The woman must acquire the Get in order to become divorced. Since once cannot acquire an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah, why is a Get written on an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah a valid Get?
(b) The Gemara earlier says that if the woman pays the fee to the scribe who writes the Get, the Get is not valid. Only because the Chachamim utilized their power of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" and transferred the ownership of the money to the husband is the Get valid. The Poskim infer from there that the husband must own the Get (see RAN there). How, then, can a man divorce his wife with a Get written on an object of Isurei Hana'ah if he does not have ownership of that object?
ANSWERS:
(a) RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY shlit'a explains that when a man gives a Get to his wife and says that the paper on which the Get is written should remain his, he retains the right to take the paper back. Consequently, his act of "giving" the Get is not an absolute "Nesinah." In contrast, the husband has no claim of ownership on an object of Isurei Hana'ah. Although the woman also does not have ownership of such an object, the fact that the man has no claim to it is enough to make his act of giving the Get a valid "Nesinah."
(b) Similarly, the requirement that the Get must belong to the husband means that it should not belong to anyone else. In the case of the scribe's fee, the Chachamim must transfer the money to the husband so that the Get will be his exclusively, and neither the woman nor the scribe will have any ownership over it.
However, the husband does not need to have monetary ownership of the Get. As long as no one else has ownership of it, it is valid. Therefore, even an object of Isurei Hana'ah may be used for a Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

20b----------------------------------------20b

2) A GET CUT INTO PIECES
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the validity of the Get in a case in which a man gives his wife a Get but stipulates that the blank parts of the Get, between the lines and between the words, should remain his. The Gemara's question may be understood based on the words of RASHI earlier, who explains that if a man gives a Get on condition that the paper on which the Get is written remains his, the Get is not valid because the letters are "Porchos b'Avir," suspended in the air. Do the letters of the text of the Get need only the paper on which they are actually written, or do they also need the blank parts surrounding them?
The Gemara then suggests that the Get should be invalid for a different reason. Since the margins and blank areas of the paper remain the husband's, he eventually will cut them out, rendering the Get a collection of small pieces of paper. Such a Get is invalid because of the verse which requires that a Get be "one 'Sefer' and not two or three Sefarim." The Gemara explains that the question still applies in the case of a Get whose text is "Me'urah," mixed. In such a case, cutting away the blank parts will not separate the Get into multiple parts.
In what way can the blank sections be eliminated without cutting the Get into multiple pieces? RASHI explains that the long letters touch the tops of the letters beneath them.
The Acharonim (see MAHARAM and RASHASH) ask that although Rashi explains how the Get would remain intact when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each line, he does not explain how the Get would remain intact when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each word. Since no successive words touch each other, a cut can be made from the top of the document to the bottom (on a slant at some points), cutting the Get into multiple pieces.
ANSWERS:
(a) The MAHARAM writes that the Gemara's conclusion is that when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each word, the Get indeed is invalid. The Gemara's question applies only to a case in which he keeps the parchment between each line.
(b) The RASHASH answers that the Gemara's question ("Bein Shitah l'Shitah, Bein Teivah l'Teivah") includes two separate questions. The case of "Bein Shitah l'Shitah" refers to when the husband keeps for himself only the space between the lines, but not the space between the words. It is with regard to this case that the Gemara asks that without the blank spaces between the lines, the Get is not one "Sefer." The Gemara answers, "d'Me'urah" -- the long letters reach the space between the words on the line above. Since the husband did not keep for himself the space between the words, all of the Get is a contiguous document.
With regard to the Gemara's second question ("Bein Teivah l'Teivah"), the fact that long letters reach the space between the lines is enough to make the Get one inseparable piece, since the husband did not keep the space between the lines to himself.
(c) REBBI AKIVA EIGER writes that even if the Gemara refers to a case in which the husband keeps for himself both the space between the lines and the space between the words, the Gemara's question applies only to the space between the lines. Since the space between the words is necessary to give the words the status of "Mukaf Gevil," this space is necessary for the Get to be valid and thus it cannot be considered as though it has been cut off, and the Get cannot be considered to be cut into pieces.
(d) According to the RIVAM (see following Insight), there is no difficulty whatsoever. Both the words and the lines may be attached with a small part of a letter. This is what the Gemara means when it answers "d'Me'urah." (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
3) DOES A GET NEED "MUKAF GEVIL"?
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the validity of the Get in a case in which a man gives his wife a Get but stipulates that the blank parts of the Get, between the lines and between the words, should remain his.
The Gemara suggests that the Get should be invalid because if the margins and blank areas of the paper remain the husband's, he eventually will cut them out, rendering the Get a collection of small pieces of paper. Such a Get is invalid because of the verse which requires that a Get be "one 'Sefer' and not two or three Sefarim." The Gemara explains that the question still applies in the case of a Get whose text is "Me'urah," mixed. RASHI explains that the long letters touch the tops of the letters beneath them. In such a case, cutting away the blank parts will not separate the Get into multiple parts. (See previous Insight.)
The Rishonim here address the question of whether a Get is valid when some of its letters touch each other.
(a) TOSFOS (DH Lo Tzericha) quotes the RIVAM who proves from the Gemara here (which answers that a Get whose text is "Me'urah" is valid) that a Get is valid when letters touch each other, in contrast to a Sefer Torah which is not valid when letters touch each other (because the letters of a Sefer Torah must be "Mukaf Gevil").
(b) The RI refutes the Rivam's proof. He explains that "Me'urah" does not mean that the letters touch each other. Rather, it means that the long letters protrude into, but do not touch, the open parts of the letters below (and the tall letters protrude into the open parts of the letters above). For example, the bottom of the Nun-Sofis protrudes into the open part of the Tes below it, and the top of the Lamed protrudes into the open part of the Heh above it.
(c) The NIMUKEI YOSEF also refutes the Rivam's proof. He explains, however, that the long letters reach between the words below (or above) them. He does not accept the Ri's explanation because he maintains that when part of a letter protrudes into the open part of another letter, the form of the second letter is lost. A letter must have nothing protruding into its hollow parts, for if it does it loses its form as a letter. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF