GITIN 24 - 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 24 (3 Av) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmos Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New York), who passed away on 3 Av 5761, and Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld who passed away on 8 Av 5765, by their daughter Shifra, and family.

1)

TOSFOS DH "v'Ha Lo Chazrah"

תוס' ד"ה "והא לא חזרה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this concept.)

שליח לא מיקרי אלא המשתלח מזה לזה שראוי לחזור לשולחו לומר עשיתי שליחותך קודם שיעשה שליח לאחרים

(a)

Explanation: A messenger is only someone who is sent from one person to another, and who can possibly go back to the one who sent him to say, "I accomplished your Shelichus," before he will become a messenger for others. (Note: The Tosfos Ha'Rosh adds that being that the woman must make another shelichus before the mission can be accomplished, she does not fit this criteria.)

ובקונטרס לא פירש כן.

1.

Rashi does not give this explanation.

2)

TOSFOS DH "Chatzeirah"

תוס' ד"ה "חצירה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi about the definition of this case, and analyzes the Gemara's answer further.)

פירש בקונט' שנתן הגט בחצר חברו

(a)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the case is where he put the Get in the courtyard of his friend.

ואין נראה דחצר חברו לא דמי לשליח להולכה

(b)

Question: This does not seem correct, as his friend's courtyard is not similar to a Sheliach l'Holachah (messenger to deliver).

אלא אומר ר"י שנתנו הבעל בחצר של עצמו ומכרו לאחרים והאשה קנאתו מאותו אחר

(c)

Opinion#2: Rather, the Ri says the husband put it in his own courtyard and sold the courtyard to others. The woman proceeded to acquire it from the buyer.

וא"ת למה לי למינקט משום חצרה הבאה לאחר מכאן הוה ליה למימר משום שליחות עצמה שהבעל עשה שליח להולכה והאשה תעשה אותו שליח עצמו שליח לקבלה וכי האי גוונא לא מהני משום דלא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל

(d)

Question: Why does the Gemara say that this is because of her "courtyard that comes afterwards?" It should have said that this is because of a problem in the Shelichus itself! The husband made a Shaliach l'Holachah, and the woman is going to make that same messenger a "Shaliach l'Kabalah" (a messenger to receive the Get for her). This should not be valid as the messenger cannot return to the husband (immediately, as explained in the Tosfos above).

ואומר ר"י משום דאותו טעם שלא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל אינו ברור כל כך דאיכא דמספקא ליה לקמן בפרק התקבל (דף סג:)

(e)

Answer: The Ri explains that this reason that the messenger cannot return to the husband is not a clear reason, as some doubt that this poses a problem as is apparent in the Gemara later (63b).

וצ"ע דאמאי לא משני הכא כגון דשוייה איהי שליח מעיקרא והדר שוי איהו שליח דליכא למיגזר משום חצרה הבאה לאחר מיכן כדאמר בפרק התקבל (שם).

(f)

Question: This (the following question) requires analysis. Why doesn't the Gemara answer here that the case is when she first appointed the messenger, and only afterwards did he appoint this same messenger. There is no reason in such a scenario to decree that it is invalid due to a similarity of "her courtyard coming afterwards" (as she is appointing the messenger first), as is apparent in the Gemara later (63b).

3)

TOSFOS DH "v'Chi Matis"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי מטית"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks how we can reconcile this with a principle quoted later on 29b.)

וא"ת שליח שלא ניתן לגירושין הוא ולא מצי משוי שליח כדאמר בפ' כל הגט (לקמן דף כט:) גבי ההוא דשדר גיטא לדביתהו ואמר ליה יהביה לאבא בר מניומי אתא ולא אשכחיה יתיב רבי יצחק ור' חנינא ור' אבהו אמרו ליה מסור מילך קמן אמר להו רב ספרא והא שליח שלא ניתן לגירושין הוא

(a)

Question: This seems to be a case of a messenger who is not empowered to effect the divorce, and he therefore should not be able to make a messenger who will effect the divorce. This is as stated later (29b) regarding a person who had sent a messenger to deliver a Get for his wife. He stated to the messenger that he should give the Get to Abba bar Minyumi (who would take care of the actual giving of the Get). The messenger went (where he was supposed to go), but did not find Abba bar Minyumi. Rebbi Yitzchak, Rebbi Chanina, and Rebbi Avahu were sitting together. They said to the messenger, "Give us your words (meaning that they pass the Shelichus over to them)." Rav Safra said to them, "Isn't this a case of a messenger who was not empowered to divorce?" (Note: He therefore should not be able to make another messenger who can give the Get.)

וי"ל דהתם פריך שפיר דכיון שלא ניתן לגירושין אין לו לעשות אלא כמו שאמר לו הבעל ליתנו לאבא בר מניומי אבל הכא הרי הבעל צוה לה לעשות שליח להולכה.

(b)

Answer: The Gemara there asks a good question. Being that the messenger could not effect the divorce, he can only do what the husband asked him to do, which is to give the Get to Abba bar Minyumi. However, in our case the husband commanded her to make a Shaliach l'Holachah.

4)

TOSFOS DH "Aimar Kamei"

תוס' ד"ה "אימר קמי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between the two answers.)

קצת תימה מה לי היא ומה לי בית דין ואמאי קאמר ואב"א

(a)

Question: This is somewhat difficult. What does it make a difference whether she or the Beis Din (make the messenger)? (Note: If there indeed is not difference) why does the Gemara imply that these are two separate answers when it says, "And if you want I will say (and alternate answer)?"

ושמא לשון זה חלוק מלשון ראשון דבלישנא קמא אינה אומרת בפני נכתב אלא בשעה שתקבלנו

(b)

Answer: Perhaps this version (i.e. answer) is different than the first answer, in that in the first answer she does not say "in front of me it was written" until she accepts the Get.

אע"ג דבפ' כל הגט (לקמן דף כט.) ובכל דוכתא משמע שצריך לומר בשעה שהגט יוצא מיד השליח

(c)

Implied Question: The Gemara later (29a) and in all other places implies that "in front of me it was written etc." must be said when the Get leaves the hands of the messenger.

שמא הכא שיכולה לומר בשעת גירושין עדיף טפי.

(d)

Answer: Perhaps here where she can say this when she receives the Get, it is preferable.

5)

TOSFOS DH "Kol ha'Get"

תוס' ד"ה "כל הגט"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Get is different than Megilas Sotah.)

בסופרים העשויים להתלמד עסקינן כדאמרינן בגמרא

(a)

Explanation: The Mishnah is referring to scribes who write Gitin in order to learn how to write them, as is explained in the Gemara.

ואפי' למ"ד בפרק קמא דעירובין (דף יג.) דמגילת סוטה מוחקין לה מן התורה אע"ג דבעינן לשמה ותורה להתלמד עבידא כדאמר התם

(b)

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Eiruvin (13a) that a Megilas Sotah can be erased from the Parshah of Sotah written in a Torah, even though we require that a Megilas Sotah be written Lishmah and a Sefer Torah is written to learn from, as is stated in the Gemara there.

לענין גט מודה כדפרשינן בפ' שני (לעיל דף כ.) וספר תורה נמי פסלינן בפ' שני.

(c)

Answer: Regarding a Get he agrees (that a Get written without intent is invalid), as we explained earlier (20a). Even the words written in the Torah regarding a Get are also invalid (to be used as a Get) as stated in the second chapter.

24b----------------------------------------24b

6)

TOSFOS DH "Yeser Mikan" (starting bottom of 24a)

תוס' ד"ה "יתר מיכן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when the use of the term "moreover" is appropriate in a Mishnah.)

בגמ' מפרש לא זה שנכתב שלא לשם גירושין אלא אף זה שנכתב לשם גירושין להכי תנא יתר מיכן

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this is not only referring to a Get that was not written for divorce, but even to a Get that was written for divorce. This is why it says "moreover."

וא"ת והיכי שייך למיתני הכא יתר מיכן כיון דמהאי נמי לא הוה שמעינן בקמייתא דפסול דהוה אמינא דהאי הוא דכי איכתיב לשם רחל לא הדר איכתיב לשם לאה אבל סופרים להתלמד עשויים הכי נמי דכשר

(b)

Question: How can the Mishnah here say "moreover?" From this case alone, we would not know that the first case of the Mishnah is invalid! One might think that a Get written for Rachel cannot be later written for Leah. However, scribes that write Gitin for practice might be valid (as they are written without any intent for a different woman).

דהכי אמרינן בפ"ק דעירובין (דף יג.) דאע"ג דאין מגילתה כשרה להשקות בה סוטה אחרת תורה אע"ג דלהתלמד עבידא הכי נמי דמוחקין

1.

We indeed use similar logic in Eiruvin (13a), where we say that even though the Megilas Sotah of one woman cannot be used to make another Sotah drink, a Sefer Torah that is written to learn from can be erased. (Note: This means that the Parshah of Sotah in it can be used as a Megilas Sotah (there is no reason to erase the rest of the Sefer Torah).)

וי"ל דלהתלמד דהכא לא חשיב לשמה כמו להתלמד דספר תורה דסופרים העשויים להתלמד אין כותבין כלל לשם הכשר דגט אבל ס"ת כותב בסתם לכל מה שצריך לעשות בו

(c)

Answer#1: The Gitin written for practice here is unlike the Lishmah regarding a Sefer Torah used for learning. Scribes who practice writing a Get do not write the Get in order that it should be a valid Get. However, a Sefer Torah is written with the intent that whatever needs to be done with it can be done.

ומיהו אפ"ה כריתות של ס"ת אין כשר לגרש בו כדפירשנו לעיל (דף כ.)

1.

However, even so the Pesukim where the Torah discusses a Get is invalid to be used as a Get, as we explained earlier (see 24a, DH "Kol ha'Get").

אי נמי י"ל דמ"מ שייך למתני יתר מיכן כיון שיש סברא אחת בסופרים מקרין לפסול טפי מבנמלך

(d)

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the term "moreover" can still be said in the Mishnah, being that there is a logical angle to say that scribes writing for practice should be worse than a Get written to be used as a valid Get.

וא"ת בהכותב טופסי גיטין ה"ל נמי למיתני יתר על כן דהא מכל הני לא מצי למידק בריש זבחים (דף ב:) דסתמא פסול דלאו לשמה קאי אלא מההיא דהכותב טופסי גיטין לחודא

(e)

Question: Regarding someone who writes forms of Gitin (26a), the Mishnah also should have said "moreover." This is because from all of the cases (presented in Zevachim 2b) we were unable to deduce that doing something with neutral intent is not considered Lishmah, besides from this Mishnah later (26a) regarding people who write forms for Gitin. (Note: According, the Mishnah should start "moreover," as there is an added novel teaching in this Mishnah.)

וי"ל דההיא בבא דטופסי גיטין לא תנא כלל לאשמועינן דסתמא פסול אלא אשמועינן דשרו רבנן לסופר לכתוב הטופס מפני התקנה.

(f)

Answer: The Mishnah regarding forms of Gitin was not written to teach that neutral intent is invalid. Rather, it teaches us that the Rabbis permitted a scribe to write such a form in order to help him (see 26a).

7)

TOSFOS DH "l'Aizo she'Ertzeh"

תוס' ד"ה "לאיזו שארצה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that when our Gemara says there is no Bereirah, it is not getting involved in the famous argument regarding whether or not we say there generally is Bereirah.)

בגמרא מפרש משום דאין ברירה

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara explains that this is because we hold that one cannot retroactively determine the woman for whom the Get was written.

ואומר ר"י דאפי' מאן דסבר בעלמא יש ברירה הכא מודה משום דוכתב לה לשמה משמע שיהא מבורר בשעת כתיבה

1.

The Ri says that the opinion that usually holds that one can retroactively determine intent would agree that in this case one cannot do so. This is because the Pasuk "And he will write for her," which teaches that a Get must be written Lishmah, implies by its very nature that it should be known at the time that the Get is being written that it is for a specific woman.

וכן משמע בגמרא דקאמר אי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ר' יוחנן דאין ברירה משום דבעינן לה לשמה משמע אע"ג דבעלמא יש ברירה הכא פסול משום דכתיב וכתב לה.

2.

This is also implied by the Gemara. The Gemara (25a) says that Rebbi Yochanan might only have taught regarding a Get that is not written Lishmah that it is totally invalid, as we require that it be written for her. This implies that even though we generally hold that one can retroactively determine intent, such a Get is clearly invalid because of the Pasuk "And he will write for her."

8)

TOSFOS DH "b'Eidei Mesirah"

תוס' ד"ה "בעדי מסירה"

(SUMMARY: The Gemara delves into the suspicion of having two Yosef ben Shimon's and how this affects kosher Gitin.)

אבל לר' מאיר בעינן שיהא מוכח מתוך החתימה שנכתב לשם זה האיש ואשה זו ולא מהני עדי מסירה

(a)

Explanation: However, according to Rebbi Meir, we require that it should be obvious from the signing that it was written for this man and woman. Witnesses that saw the giving of the Get do not help.

וההיא דהמגרש (לקמן פו:) שנים ששלחו ב' גיטין ושמותיהן שוין נותן שניהם לזו ושניהם לזו וקאמר ר' ירמיה בגמרא הא דלא כר' אלעזר משמע דכר' מאיר ניחא

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Gitin (86b) says that if two people sent two Gitin to their wives and their names (and those of their wives) are the same (and the Gitin proceeded to get mixed up), each woman should receive both Gitin. In the Gemara, Rebbi Yirmiyah says that this is unlike the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. This implies that this does not present a problem according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

התם מיירי כדפרשי' לעיל כשכתבו דורות או סימן או כהן שניכר מתוך החתימה ועדי מסירה אין מכירין באבותיהן או בסימן הכתוב

(c)

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing, as we explained earlier, when they wrote the generations (of the person), or another identifying characteristic, or that he is a kohen. In all of these cases it is clear from the signing which Get is which. However, the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get do not know which one person had a Get with certain ancestors or a particular identifying characteristic. (Note: They merely know the person, and that he gave over a Get to his wife.)

וא"ת למאן דחייש לקמן בפרקין (דף כז.) לשני שוירי ולשני יוסף בן שמעון אע"ג דלא הוחזקו א"כ לר"מ יפסלו כל הגיטין דלא משכחת תו שום גט שיהא מוכח מתוכו

(d)

Question: According to the one who suspects later (27a) that there could be two places called Sheviri and two separate people who live in these places who answer to the name "Yosef Ben Shimon," even though we do not know this to be true, he should hold that Rebbi Meir will say that all Gitin are invalid! There will be no Get in the world that is clearly referring to a particular couple (as we could always suspect there are two people with these names)!

ואומר ר"י דדוקא בגט הנמצא הוא דחייש שמא מאחר נפל אבל חשיב שפיר מוכח מתוכו כיון דלא הוחזקו אלא שוירי א' ויוסף בן שמעון אחד

(e)

Answer: The Ri answers that this opinion later (27a) is specifically referring to a Get that was found, as we suspect it might have fallen from someone else (i.e. another Yosef ben Shimon or his messenger etc.). However, in general such a Get is considered to be clear, being that there is only place called Sheviri that we know of, and one Yosef ben Shimon that lives there.

ואם תאמר דתנן בפרק גט פשוט (ב"ב דף קסז:) כותבין גט לאיש אע"פ שאין אשתו עמו ופריך בגמרא וליחוש לשני יוסף בן שמעון הדרים בעיר אחת דלמא ממטי לה גיטא לאיתתיה דהאיך ומשני הכי אמר רב שני יוסף בן שמעון הדרים בעיר אחת אין מגרשין אלא זה בפני זה

(f)

Question: The Mishnah in Bava Basra (167b) says that we write a Get for a man even though his wife is not with him. The Gemara asks, why don't we suspect that there are two people called Yosef ben Shimon who live in one city? Perhaps this man will give the Get to the other one's wife? The Gemara answers, Rav says that when there are two Yosef ben Shimon's who live in one city, they cannot only get divorced in front of each other.

והשתא היכי מיירי אי בלא הוחזקו הא מסקינן לקמן דלא חיישינן ואי בהוחזקו א"כ לר"מ אפי' זה בפני זה אין מגרשין עד שיכתבו כהן או דורות או שום סימן ואז ליכא למיחש למידי ואי לר' אלעזר הא עדי מסירה ידעי שפיר אם זו היא אשתו או לאו כדאמר הכא

1.

What is the case? If it is not known that there are two Yosef ben Shimon's, we concluded that we generally do not suspect for this (as explained above in (e). If there are two Yosef ben Shimon's there, according to Rebbi Meir they cannot even get divorced in front of each other unless they write that one of them is a kohen, or they write more generations (Shimon's father etc.), or another identifying factor. This takes away any suspicion. If this Gemara in Bava Basra (167b) is according to Rebbi Elazar, the witnesses who see the giving of the Get know full well if this woman is his wife or not, as stated here.

ואומר ר"י דאין עדי מסירה מדקדקים לראות אם זו אשתו כיון שמכירים שמו ושמה וכתוב בגט שמו ושמה ולא חיישי' שמא יתננו לאשת חבירו ששמו כשמו ושמה כשמה וגם לא מסקי אדעתייהו להבחין אם יש יוסף בן שמעון אחר בעיר וכשבאה לב"ד להתירה להנשא מעידים עדי מסירה בפני ב"ד שראו שבעלה נתן לה גט אע"פ שלא דקדקו אם היא היתה אשתו

(g)

Answer: The Ri says that the witnesses of the giving of the Get generally do not ascertain if the woman he gives the Get to is actually his wife, and rely on the fact that they know his name and her name, and that these names are written in the Get. We do not suspect that he might give this Get to his friend's wife whose name is the same as his name and her name is the same as that of his wife.

וגם לא מסקי אדעתייהו להבחין אם יש יוסף בן שמעון אחר בעיר וכשבאה לב"ד להתירה להנשא מעידים עדי מסירה בפני ב"ד שראו שבעלה נתן לה גט אע"פ שלא דקדקו אם היא היתה אשתו

1.

The witnesses also do not determine if there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the city. When she comes to Beis Din in order that they should permit her to remarry, the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get testify before Beis Din that they saw that her husband gave her the Get, even though they did not check if she was his wife.

ולהכי פריך ניחוש דלמא ממטי לה גיטא לאיתתיה דהאי דאפילו אין יודעין הכותבין אם הוחזקו אין להם לכתוב דזימנין דהוחזקו ולא ידעי

2.

This is why the Gemara asks that we should suspect that he is giving the Get to the other person's wife. Even if the people who are writing this do not know if there are two people with similar names in the city, perhaps they should not write this Get as sometimes there are people with similar names?

ומשני שני יוסף כו' אין מגרשין אלא זה בפני זה וכשבאה לבית דין להתירה שיילי ב"ד לעדי מסירה אם היו שם שני יוסף בן שמעון

3.

The Gemara answers that when there are two Yosef ben Shimon's etc., they can only get divorce in front of each other. When she comes to Beis Din so that they should permit her to remarry, Beis Din asks the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get if there were two Yosef ben Shimon's in the city.

ולא רצה לתרץ דאין מגרשין אלא א"כ מכירין עדים שזו היא אשתו דאין זו תקנה טובה דאם כן בטורח ימצאו עדי מסירה.

4.

The Gemara did not want to answer that they cannot perform the divorce unless the witnesses actually know that this is his wife. This would not be a good institution, as people will hardly be able to find kosher witnesses for the giving of the Get.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF