GITIN 17 (18 Teves) - 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.
 

12th CYCLE DEDICATION
GITIN 17(25 Tamuz) - Dedicated by Les and Sandy Wiesel in memory of Les's mother, Faiga bas Rav Moshe Shmuel z'l.

1)

TOSFOS DH "Ha mi'Kami"

תוס' ד"ה "הא מקמי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains who the Chavri were, and when the Persians came to Bavel.)

פי' בקונט' חברי היינו פרסיים ומקמי דאתו חברי לבבל היינו בימי כשדים נבוכדנצר ואויל מרודך ובלשצר ובתר דאתו היינו כשכבש כורש את המלכות ומלך בבבל

(a)

Rashi's Opinion: Rashi explains that the Chavri are Persians. Before the Chavri came to Bavel refers to the days of the Kasdim, when Nevuchadnezer, Belshatzar, and Evil Murdoch were in power. Afterwards refers to when Koresh became captured the throne and became king (this is when the Persians came to Bavel).

וקשה לר"ת דעל כרחך חברים לאו היינו פרסיים דאמר בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין דף עב.) הראני פרסיים דומין לחיילות של בית דוד הראני חברים דומין למלאכי חבלה

(b)

Question#1: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this explanation. Chavrim cannot refer to Persians, as the Gemara in Kidushin (72a) says, "He showed me Persians that are like the soldiers of the house of David, and he showed me Chavrim like the angels of destruction." This clearly implies that Chavrim and Persians are two different nations.

ועוד דבפרק הבא על יבמתו (יבמות דף סג:) משמע דבימי ר' יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל דאמרו ליה לר' יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל שגא נפל

(c)

Question#2: Additionally, in Yevamos (63b) the Gemara implies that the Chavri came to Bavel in the times of Rebbi Yochanan. They said to Rebbi Yochanan, "The Chavri are coming!" He bent over and fell.

ואומר ר"י דחברים הם אומה אחת שבאה בימי רבי יוחנן וכשבאה לבבל הרשיעה את הפרסיים שהיו בבבל ואתקלקלו טפי מארומאי

(d)

Tosfos' Opinion: The Ri states that the Chavrim are a nation that came to Bavel during the time of Rebbi Yochanan. When they came to Bavel, they were indeed worse than the Romans.

וא"ת למאי דפי' בקונט' דמימי כורש באו פרסיים לבבל ובהגוזל בתרא (ב"ק קיז.) אמרינן דאמר ליה רב לרב כהנא עד האידנא הוה מלכותא דיוונאי דלא קפדי אשפיכות דמים השתא פרסיים נינהו וקפדי אשפיכות דמים משמע דבימי רב אתו פרסיים לבבל

(e)

Question: Rashi explained that the Persians came to Bavel in the times of Koresh. In Bava Kama (117a), Rav said to Rav Kahana that until now the Greek kingdom was not careful about murder, but now the Persians are coming who are careful not to murder. This Gemara clearly implies that the Persians came to Bavel during the time of Rav (and Rebbi Yochanan)!

ואומר ר"י דהתם הכי פירושא עד האידנא הוה מלכותא דיוונאי שמושלים של בבל היו מיוונים ועכשיו המושלים הם פרסיים אבל לעולם פרסיים היו שם מימות כורש.

(f)

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara there means the rulers in Bavel until then had come from the Greeks, and now the rulers were coming from Persian stock. However, the Persians had been in Bavel from the times of Koresh.

2)

TOSFOS DH "Echad Omer"

תוס' ד"ה "אחד אומר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah stated there was a witness regarding the writing of the Get according to Rava.)

לרבא אפי' ליכא מעיד על הכתיבה כשר

(a)

Implied Question: According to Rava, even if there is not one person testifying about the writing of the Get it is kosher. (Note: Why, then, did the Mishnah have to say that there is someone testifying about the writing of the Get according to Rava?)

ולא נקט אחד אומר בפני נכתב אלא אגב רישא דתני אחד.

(b)

Answer: The Mishnah only said there is one person testifying about the writing of the Get because of the first part of the Mishnah which mentioned one person testifying regarding the writing of the Get.

3)

TOSFOS DH "Amar Ley"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר ליה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out how this question is similar to the questions asked earlier on 16b.)

קושיא דרבי אסי אינה אלא במאי פליגי כדפרישי' לעיל אלא שלא חש להאריך.

(a)

Observation: Rebbi Asi's question is essentially what do they argue about, as I explained earlier (see Tosfos 16b, DH "Ha Get"). The Gemara just didn't bother to elaborate.

4)

TOSFOS DH "Nechtav b'Yom"

תוס' ד"ה "נכתב ביום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is invalid.)

לרבי יוחנן משום שמא יחפה על בת אחותו ולריש לקיש משום פירי דסבורין הדיינים שביום הכתיבה נחתם ותטרוף האשה מלקוחות שלא כדין פירות שמשעת כתיבה עד שעת חתימה.

(a)

Explanation: According to Rebbi Yochanan, the reason is because he might cover up for his niece. (Note: If she is married to him and she has an affair, he might pre-date their Get to make sure she is not killed for her infidelity.) According to Reish Lakish, this is to insure that judges who will think that the Get was written and given one the same day do not have the woman seize things from people who bought the fruits (of her property and possessions, which he is entitled to use during their marriage) from her husband after the writing and before the actual signing of the Get.

5)

TOSFOS DH "v'Rebbi Shimon"

תוס' ד"ה "ורבי שמעון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Shimon argues.)

דלית ליה שמא יחפה כדאמר בגמרא ומשום פירי נמי ליכא דקסבר משנתן עיניו לגרשה שוב אין לבעל פירות דהיינו משעת כתיבה

(a)

Explanation: He does not agree that a person might cover up for his niece. He also does not suspect there will be a mistaken seizure (as explained immediately above). This is because he holds that once the husband decides to divorce her, he can no longer use the fruits (of her possessions). This is from the time of the writing of the Get.

וא"ת וניחוש שמא נכתב בלילה והקדימו הבעל והאשה וכתבו זמן של יום לעשות קנוניא על הלקוחות ואע"פ שבא לגרשה כדחיישינן בסוף פ"ק דב"מ (דף יט:) גבי שובר

(b)

Question: Why doesn't he suspect that it was written at night, but the husband and wife conspired to write the date as the previous day in order that the wife could seize the fruits from the buyers (and they would possibly split the profits in some manner). We see we suspect such conspiracies even though he is divorcing her (and one might think that their relationship is not one where they would conspire together), as we see in Bava Metzia (19b) regarding a receipt.

וי"ל דלעולם אין חותמין העדים כשרואין הזמן מוקדם אא"כ יודעים שביום הזמן נכתב.

(c)

Answer: The witness would not have signed if they saw that the Get was pre-dated, unless they know that the date was written on the correct day.

6)

TOSFOS DH "mi'Pnei Mah"

תוס' ד"ה "מפני מה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why another reason for the date in Gitin is invalid, and explains why a date was required for a document freeing a slave.)

לא מצי למימר דתקינו זמן כדי שתוכל להוציא האשה מן הבעל מזונות שלוותה ואכלה קודם זמן הכתוב בגט שלא יוכל לומר לה גירשתיך מקודם לכן

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have said that the reason the date was instituted to be written in a Get was in order that the woman could claim from the husband basic support that she had to borrow from others in the time before the divorce. The time would act as a proof, so that he could not claim he divorced her earlier (and be free from these claims).

דבלאו הכי נאמנת אשה על כך מיגו דאי בעי תטמין את גיטה ולא ידעו שהיא גרושה ולא תראנו עד שתרצה להנשא

(b)

Answer: Even without the date the woman would be believed, as she has a Migu that she could have hid her Get and people would not know she was divorced at all, until she wants to remarry.

ואם יביא הבעל עדי מסירה אז לא תפסיד האשה שידעו העדים מתי נמסר אע"ג דבעל שאומר גירשתי את אשתי נאמן היינו דווקא מכאן ולהבא כדאמרינן ביש נוחלין (ב"ב דף קלד:) ואפילו מכאן ולהבא לא מצינו שיהא נאמן כשאשתו מכחישתו

1.

If the husband will bring the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get, the woman still will not lose as the witnesses know when the Get was given (and will not let the husband lie that it happened earlier). Even though a husband is believed to say he divorced his wife, he is only believed for the future as the Gemara says in Bava Basra (134b), and even then we only know he is believed when his wife does not contradict that she was divorced.

ועוד דמשום מזונות לא היו צריכין לתקן זמן כמו שאפרש על רבי יוחנן בסמוך דאפילו אין בו זמן יכולה האשה לבקש עדי מסירה שיעידו בפני ב"ד או עדים שהיום נתגרשה ויכתבו לה שטר אחר

2.

Additionally, they would not have to institute having the date in the Get for this reason. This is as I will explain regarding Rebbi Yochanan later on, that even without a date the woman can seek out the witnesses who witnessed the giving of the Get in order that they should testify before Beis Din. Alternatively, she could seek witnesses that she was divorced on that day, and they could write her a different document.

וא"ת וגט שיחרור למה תיקנו בו זמן

(c)

Question: Why did they institute that a date must be written in a document freeing a slave (Eved Kenani)?

דאי משום מעשה ידיו בלא זמן נמי יוכל לבא לב"ד ויכתבו לו שמאותו יום נשתחרר

1.

If it is in order to protect his earnings from his work, he can anyway go to Beis Din and they will write for him that he was freed on that day (it doesn't have to be written in the document itself).

ואפי' למ"ד עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו אינו זוכה במעשה ידיו מיום הכתיבה כיון שאין בו זמן ואין מוכיח מתוכו מתי נכתב

2.

Even according to the opinion that when the witnesses sign they make the document take effect, they do not make him acquire his work from the day of the writing of the document, being that the document does not have a date (when it was written), and it is not clear when it was written. (Note: Even though a date is on the document, the date only tells us when the document was given, not when it was written.)

כמו בשני שטרות היוצאין ביום אחד דאפילו לאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו זה שמסר לו תחילה קנה דבפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כח:) משמע דאביי סבר כרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי

3.

This is like two documents written on the same day. Even according to Abaye who says that the signing of the witnesses makes the document take effect, the one who he gives it to first is the one who actually acquires (whatever the document states is being sold). This is apparent from the Gemara in Sanhedrin (28b), where the Gemara implies that Abaye holds like Rebbi Elazar who says that the witnesses of the giving over of the document cause the document to take effect.

ולרבי אלעזר על כרחך זה שמסר לו תחילה קנה כדמוכח בפרק מי שהיה נשוי (כתובות צד:) והיינו משום דלא אמרינן עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו אלא היכא דמוכח מתוכו והוא הדין הכא באין בו זמן כלל

4.

According to Rebbi Elazar, it must be that the person who he gave the document to first acquired it, as is apparent from the Gemara in Kesuvos (94b). This is because we do not say witnesses who sign a document make it take effect unless it is apparent from the document what is happening. Here, too, when no date (when it was written) is in the document, it will not take effect.

ואומר ר"י דתקנו זמן דאי לא הוי ביה זמן פעמים שהיה אדם מוכר עבדו ואח"כ כותב לו גט שיחרור בלא זמן והיה אומר העבד לרבו שני אייתי ראיה ששטר מכר שלך קדם לשחרור שהעבד הוא מוחזק בעצמו והלוקח בא להוציא ממנו השעבוד

(d)

Answer: The Ri states that they instituted that a date be written because otherwise a person might sell his slave and afterwards right him a document freeing him without a date. The slave would then say to his second master, bring proof that your sale documents predates my freedom document. The slave would win this claim, because the slave is considered as the Muchzak (status quo owner) of his own body, and the buyer is trying to take away the rights to his servitude.

אבל הכא הבעל מוחזק ולא האשה.

1.

However, in the case of a marriage the husband is the Muchzak and not the wife.

7)

TOSFOS DH "mi'Shum"

תוס' ד"ה "משום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this cover up would be effective if a Get had not date.)

שלא יחפה עליה כשאין בו זמן דלא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקת אשת איש והשתא הוא דאיגרשה כיון שהיא גרושה לפנינו ועוד אדרבה אוקמה בחזקת כשרה שלא נבעלה כשהיא אשת איש.

(a)

Explanation: He should not cover up for her when there is no date in the Get. This would be an effective cover up, as we would not say she should have the status of a married woman, and that she is only considered to be a divorced woman now when she presents evidence to us that she is a divorcee. Additionally, on the contrary, we should assume that she is a kosher woman who did not have an affair while a married woman.

8)

TOSFOS DH "Reish Lakish"

תוס' ד"ה "ריש לקיש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Reish Lakish's reasoning does not mean that a Get that is post dated is invalid.)

כדי שתדע האשה מתי נכתב ונחתם ולא תפסיד פירות עד שעת נתינה

(a)

Explanation: This is in order that the woman should know when the Get was written and signed, and she should not lose the fruits between this time and when the Get is actually given.

וא"ת גט מאוחר יפסל מהאי טעמא ובפ' גט פשוט (ב"ב קס.) מוכח דכשר דאמר גט מקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו כשר מפני שיכול לעשותו פשוט ואז יהיה מאוחר דמקושר אמרי' התם מלך שנה מונין לו שתים ועכשיו ימנו מזמן הכתוב בו כדין פשוט שלא ידעו דתחילתו מקושר היה

(b)

Question: A Get that is post dated should also be invalid because of this reason. The Gemara in Bava Basra (160a), however, indicates that such a Get is valid. The Gemara says that a Get Mekushar (Get with folds where the witnesses sign on the outside of every fold) which has the signature of the witnesses on the inside is kosher, because he could turn it into a regular Get. However, this would make it into a post dated Get, as we say there that the date on a Get Mekushar is calculated in a way where a king who ruled one year can be deemed as ruling two years. This means that the change from a Mekushar to a regular Get will date the Get a year later, as people will not know that the Get was originally a Get Mekushar.

ואומר ר"י דבמאוחר אין הבעל מפסיד פירות משעת חתימה אלא משעת הזמן דאין ראוי לגרש בו אפילו נתנו לה לאלתר ואין הגירושין חלים עד הזמן

(c)

Answer: The Ri states that with a post dated Get the husband does not lose the fruits from the time of signing, but rather from the time that he can no longer use it to divorce his wife even if he would give it to her right away. The Get is not valid until the date stated in the Get.

אבל נכתב ביום לרבי שמעון ראוי לגרש בו מיד אע"פ שלא נחתם ע"י עדי מסירה דר"ש סבר כר' אלעזר דעדי מסירה כרתי כדאמרינן בפ"ק (לעיל ט:)

1.

However, if it is written during the day according to Rebbi Shimon the Get can immediately be used, even though it is not signed, by having the giving of the Get witnessed. This is because Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Elazar that witnesses of the giving of a document make it take effect as we said earlier(9b).

ולרבנן אע"ג דראוי לגרש בו כיון דליכא נמי קול אין הבעל מפסיד פירות אבל כשעסוקים באותו ענין דיש קול וראוי לגרש בו מפסיד הבעל פירות משעת כתיבה כדאמר לקמן

2.

According to the Rabbanan, even though one could divorce with it, being that the news is not spread the husband does not lose the fruits. However, when they deal with the topic of divorce and people find out about this and the Get is ready to be used for divorce, the husband indeed loses the fruits from the time the Get was written (as we say later on in the Gemara).

וקשה לר"י דאמרי' לקמן (דף יח:) אמר לעשרה כתבו גט לאשתי וחתים בו בי תרי מינייהו ביומיה ואינך מכאן עד עשרה יומי דר"ל אמר כולם משום עדים ופסול ואמאי והרי יש לו קול והרי ראוי לגרש בו דאם היה רוצה הבעל לא היה מקפיד על העשרה ויפסיד פירות משחתמו ב' הראשונים ויהא כשר לגרש בו

(d)

Question: The Ri asks that the Gemara later states (18b) that if someone said to ten people, "Write a Get for my wife, and two of you should sign on it on the day it was written, while the rest of you should sign on it within ten days," Reish Lakish says that they are all witnesses and the Get is invalid. (Note: As everyone did not sign on the day it was written, it is a Get that was dated early.) Why should it be invalid? People find out about such a divorce and the Get can be used. If the husband would have wanted, he did not have to insist that ten people should sign. He would have lost the fruits right away when the first two witnesses signed, and he could have used it to divorce his wife! (Note: In other words, as long as the Get can technically be used and people start knowing about it, the Get should be kosher (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh).)

וי"ל כל זמן שהבעל מקפיד ולא חתמו כולם אין קול עד שיחתמו כולם או שיהו עסוקין לחתום.

(e)

Answer: As long as the husband is insistent that ten people sign and everyone does not sign, it does not become publicly known until they all sign or they are at least involved in signing.

17b----------------------------------------17b

9)

TOSFOS DH "Znus"

תוס' ד"ה "זנות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our Gemara does not mean that promiscuity is uncommon, but rather that the suspicion in this case is uncommon.)

פירוש זנות בעדים ובהתראה לא שכיח

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara means that promiscuity with witnesses and a warning are not so common (that we should make a decree because he would try to get her out of such a situation).

אבל לא בעי למימר דשום זנות לא שכיח

(b)

Implied Question: However, the Gemara doesn't mean to say that promiscuity in general is uncommon. (Note: Why should we think that the Gemara does not mean to say that it is generally uncommon?)

דהא בריש כתובות (דף ב.) תקנו שתהא בתולה נישאת ביום הרביעי שאם היה לו טענת בתולים ישכים לבית דין דחיישינן לאיקרורי דעתא

(c)

Answer#1: This is evident from the Gemara in Kesuvos (2a) where they decreed that a virgin should marry on Wednesday, in order that if the husband had a claim that she was not found to be a virgin, he would wake up and immediately go to Beis Din. Otherwise (if the marriage was on the night before a day when Beis Din did not convene), we suspect that he would become cool to the fact that his wife had been promiscuous.

ומסתברא דטפי איכא למיחש לשמא תזנה מלשמא זנתה

(d)

Answer#2: It is logical that there is more reason to suspect that she might be promiscuous than that she was promiscuous.

ועוד דהתם אע"ג דלא שכיח עשו תקנה וחשו שלא תאסר עליו עולמית ויתפסנה באיסור אבל הכא לא חשו אי מחייבת מיתה ולא מיקטלה כיון דלא שכיח.

(e)

Answer#3: Additionally, there even though it is uncommon (that she was promiscuous before her wedding) they made a decree and suspected that this might happen in order that she should not be forbidden to him forever and he will be with her when she is forbidden to him. However, here they did not suspect (according to Reish Lakish) that she might really be Chayev Misah and would get out of it due to his putting an earlier date on the Get, as this is uncommon.

10)

TOSFOS DH "Ad Sha'as Nesinah"

תוס' ד"ה "עד שעת נתינה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning in depth.)

פי' בקונט' הלכך זמן כתיבת הגט לא מהני דכי בעיא למיטרף בעיא לאיתויי סהדי אימת מטא גיטא לידה

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that therefore the time that the Get was written is irrelevant (even if it is in the Get). When she wants to claim something (fruits of her possessions that she claims her husband had no rights to sell as they were no longer married), she will have to bring witnesses when she received the Get.

אע"ג דבכל שטרות אין צריך להביא עדים אימת מטא השטר לידיה אפי' למאן דלית ליה עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו

(b)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a person is not required to bring witnesses when they received other types of documents, even according to the opinion that does not hold that the witnesses signed on a document cause the acquisition to take effect. (Note: Indeed, why should Get be different?)

היינו משום דלדידיה אין כותבין שטר ללוה אלא א"כ מלוה עמו בר משטרי אקנייתא כדאמרי' בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יג.) הלכך כיון שהיה מלוה שם אמרי' שמיד מסר לו אבל גט אשה כותבין לאיש אע"פ שאין אשתו עמו משום עיגונא כמו כל גיטין הבאין ממדינת הים

(c)

Answer: This is because he (Rebbi Yochanan) holds that we do not write a loan document for a borrower unless the lender is there, unless it is a document giving the potential lender the rights to property whether he lends to the potential borrower or not, as stated in Bava Metzia (13a). Therefore, being that the lender was there, we assume that the loan was done right away. However, the law is that one may write a Get for a husband even if his wife is not with him, in order not to leave her unable to marry. This is like all of the Gitin that come from overseas (to the wife).

אבל קשה לר"י מהא דאמר בסוף פ"ק דב"מ (דף יט.) מצא גט אשה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה ופריך ניחוש דלמא כתב ליתן בניסן ולא נתן עד תשרי ואזל וזבן פירי מניסן עד תשרי ומפקא ליה לגיטא דכתב בניסן ואתיא למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין ומשני כי אתיא למטרף אמרי' לה אייתי ראייה אימת מטא גיטא לידך

(d)

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this from a Gemara in Bava Metzia (19a). The Gemara says that if a person finds a Get in the marketplace, if the husband admits he divorced his wife he should return the Get to the woman. The Gemara asks, why don't we suspect that he wrote the Get to be given in Nisan and only gave it to her in Tishrei? He might have sold fruits from his wife's possessions from Nisan to Tishrei. She would then be able to take out her Get dated from Nisan, and take away the purchases from the buyers (when she is in fact stealing)! The Gemara answers that if she would claim this, we would tell her to prove when she receive the Get.

ואמאי קשה ליה טפי אההיא ברייתא מבכל גיטין שבעולם אלא משמע דוקא בגט הנמצא דאיתרע בנפילה הוא דאמר אייתי ראיה אימת מטא גיטא לידך אבל בכל גיטין אמרינן מסתמא ביום שנכתב ונחתם נמסר

1.

Why does the Gemara have a question on this Beraisa more than any other Get? It must be that only a Get that is found, and therefore has an uncertainty in it because it fell and was lost, makes us demand that she bring proof when she received the Get. However, this Gemara implies that with all other Gitin the assumption is that they were given on the day they were written!

ואומר ר"י דהכי פירושו עד שעת נתינה דכיון דיש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה לא הוצרכו לתקן זמן בגט משום פירות דבאין בו זמן נמי תביא גיטה לב"ד או לעדים ויכתבו לה שמאותו יום נתגרשה

(e)

Answer: The Ri answers that when Rebbi Yochanan says, "until the Get is given," he means that because the husband has the rights to fruits until the Get is given, they did not have to institute the date in a Get for this reason. Even if it would not have a date she would have to bring her Get to Beis Din or witnesses who would write that she was divorced on that day. (Note: See Pnei Yehoshua who explains that overall the problems that would come out of having to have the date in the Get would be greater than the problem of "fruits" that it would be solving. This is why it would make sense to have the woman go to Beis Din and get a separate document stating when she was divorced, instead of just including it in the Get.)

וא"ת ולר' יוחנן היאך כותבין גט לאיש אע"פ שאין אשתו עמו ניחוש שמא יכתוב בניסן ולא יתן עד תשרי כדפרי' בפ"ק דב"מ (דף יב:) גבי כותבין שטר ללוה אע"פ שאין מלוה עמו

(f)

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan, how can we write a Get for a man even though his wife is not present? Why don't we suspect that he might write it in Nisan and will only give it in Tishrei, as is asked in Bava Metzia (12b) regarding writing a document for a borrower even though the lender is not present?

וי"ל דגבי כותבין שטר ללוה פריך משום דמאן דיזיף בצנעה יזיף ויש לחוש שאחר זמן ימסור לו בצנעה ויסברו לקוחות שנמסר לו משעת כתיבה אבל גט צריך עדי מסירה

(g)

Answer: Regarding writing a loan document for a borrower, the Gemara asks its question because people borrow secretly. There is therefore a suspicion that after awhile the document will be given to the lender, while the buyers will think that it was given when it was written. However, a Get needs to have witnesses it was given over (or it does not take effect).

ואפי' לר' מאיר (Note: דאמר עדי חתימה כרתי) אומר ר"ת דבעינן עדי מסירה דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים וגם מפרסמין להוציא קול שהיא פנויה וידעו לקוחות שלא נתגרשה מיום הכתיבה ויאמרו לה אייתי ראיה אימת כו'

1.

Even according to Rebbi Meir who holds that the signed witnesses make the document take effect, Rabeinu Tam explains that he agrees that witnesses of the giving of the Get are necessary, as matters of Arayos require two witnesses. Additionally, they let everyone know that she is now single. Buyers will therefore know that she wasn't divorced on the day the Get was written, and will say to her that she should bring a proof when she was divorced.

ומיהו במשליש גט לאשתו דשמעתין ליכא למיחש לרבי יוחנן למידי לא משום פירות ולא משום שמא יחפה דכיון שרואים זמן הכתיבה קודם המסירה קלא אית ליה כדאמר בסמוך אגיטין הבאין ממדינת הים

2.

However, if someone gives a third party a Get to give to his wife there is no reason to suspect for the reason of "fruits" (explained above) or that he will cover up for his niece. Being that the time of the writing is clearly seen before the Get is given, the date that it was written will become known, as is said later in the Gemara regarding Gitin coming from overseas.

וא"ת נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה אמאי פסול הא אית ליה קלא

(h)

Question: Why should a Get that was written during the day and signed at night be invalid? People find out about it!

וי"ל דלא שייך למימר קלא אית ליה אלא כשמגרש ע"י שליח אבל נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה יש לחוש שימסור לה בעצמו בצנעה לחפות עליה ולהכי לא מצי לשנויי גבי כתביה ואותביה בכיסתיה דקלא אית ליה כדמשני אגיטין הבאין ממדינת הים

(i)

Answer: The only time we can say for certain that people find out about this is when the Get is given to a messenger (to give to the wife). However, if it is written during the day and signed at night, we can suspect that he will give it to his wife privately in order to cover up her infidelity. This is why we cannot answer regarding a case where he wrote the Get and put it in his pocket (for awhile) that people find out about it, as we answer regarding a Get that came from overseas.

וא"ת ואמאי כותבין גט לאיש ליחוש שמא תזנה ויתן לה בצנעה כדי לחפות עליה

(j)

Question: Why should we ever write a Get for a man? Why don't we suspect that his wife will have an affair and he will give it to her dated early, in order to cover up for her (that she should not be killed)?

וי"ל דמסתמא מיד אחר הכתיבה יתן לה דלא מקדים פורענותא לנפשיה כדמשני בסמוך גבי כתביה ואותביה בכיסתיה.

(k)

Answer: He will probably give the Get to her immediately after it is written, in order not to bring punishment upon himself, as is answered later (18a) regarding writing it and then putting the Get in his pocket (and not giving it for awhile). (Note: This means that a person does not just write a Get for "insurance," but rather only has it written if he needs to give it now.)

11)

TOSFOS DH "Aipuch"

תוס' ד"ה "איפוך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the different times the Gemara ascribes to the opinion of Reish Lakish are one and the same.)

ריש לקיש אמר משעת כתיבה

(a)

Implied Question: Reish Lakish says that it is from the time it is written. (Note: In our Gemara, the two opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish were the time of writing and the time of the signing of the Get. In the question, the Gemara quoted the two opinions as the time of the writing of the Get and the time of the giving of the Get. How can these two arguments be advanced by the same two people?)

פירוש משעת חתימה

(b)

Answer: When the Gemara says that Reish Laskish holds it is from the time it is written, he actually means when the signatures are written (not when the Get is written). (Note: In other words, the time of the writing means the time of the signing (see Rashash who argues).)

12)

TOSFOS DH "Gazyei"

תוס' ד"ה "גזייה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara fits with the Gemara in Yevamos 31b.)

והא דאמר בפרק ד' אחין (יבמות לא:) גבי מפני מה לא תקנו זמן בקידושין משום דהיכי נעביד נינחיה גבי דידה מחקה ליה ופריך אי הכי גירושין נמי נימא הכי ומשני התם להצלה דידה קאתי

(a)

Question: The Gemara in Yevamos (31b) discusses the question, "Why didn't they institute that the date must be put into a document of kidushin?" The Gemara answers that there is no real way to go about it. If she wants, she will erase the date! The Gemara asks, this should also be said regarding divorce (that there is no purpose in putting in the date)! The Gemara answers that there (Gitin) her intent is to save herself.

לא כמו שפירש שם בקונטרס דאי מחקה ליה קטלינן לה השתא דתיקון זמן אי מחקה ליה מוקמינן לה בחזקת אשת איש וקטלינן לה

1.

This does not mean what Rashi explains there, that if she will erase the date in the Get she will be killed. This would be because once we see that the date was instituted, if she erases it we assume she was married (when she had the affair) and we kill her.

דהא הכא משמע דאי גזייה לזמן לא קטלינן לה דקאמר מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתם ודוחק לומר דלא פריך הכא אלא למאן דאמר משום פירי

2.

The Gemara here implies that if she would cut out the date she would not be killed, as it says, "what have the Rabbanan accomplished with their decree?" It is difficult to say that the question of our Gemara is only according to the opinion that it is because of the fruits (not because he will cover up for his niece).

אלא אומר ר"י דהכי פירושו התם להצלה דידה קאתי הגט בא להצילה ולהעיד עליה שהיא מגורשת ולכך יראה למחוק הזמן כי סבורה שיפסול בכך אבל האמת דאי מחקה ליה לא קטלינן לה הכא לחובה דידה קאתי כלומר הקידושין באין לחייבה ולהעיד שהיא מקודשת ומחקה ליה הזמן

(b)

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara there means when it says, "coming to save herself" that the Get is coming to save her, and testify she is divorced. This is why she (should possibly read "Tireh") will erase the date, because she thinks that it will become invalid. However, in truth if she erases the date we will not kill her. When the Gemara there answers, "Here it is referring to her detriment," it means that the kidushin come to make her liable for punishment and testify that she is mekudeshes. This is why she will simply erase the date.

13)

TOSFOS DH "Kasvei"

תוס' ד"ה "כתביה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give the same type of answer as it did in the previous Gemara.)

הכא לא בעי לשנויי דאהני לקמיה כדאמרינן לעיל דגבי כתב חדש שבת כיון דאהני לקמיה לא חיישינן לחפויי שהכתיבה והנתינה כי הדדי נינהו כמו ביומא גופא כדאמרינן לעיל

(a)

Implied Question: Here, the Gemara does not want to answer that it helps for the future, as the Gemara answered previously (17b) regarding the cases where only the month or week were written in the Get. The Gemara answered that being that it helps for the future we do not suspect that he will cover up for her, as the writing and giving are similar just as when it (the writing and signing) is done on the same day. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara give the same answer?)

אבל גבי כתב ואנחיה בכיסתיה וגיטין הבאין ממדינת הים שהנתינה היא אחר הכתיבה חיישינן שמא יחפה ויאמר שקר שמקודם לכן נתגרשה וכן נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול אף על גב דאהני לקמיה

(b)

Answer: However, regarding writing a Get and leaving it in one's pocket and Gitin that come from overseas, where the giving is long after the writing, we suspect that he will cover up and lie that she was divorced much earlier (than she actually was). Similarly, if the Get is written during the day and signed at night it is invalid, even though it helps for the future.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF