THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
GITIN 66 & 67 - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter who wants the
Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.
1) A GIFT AND A GET AFTER DEATH
QUESTION: The Gemara compares the Get that a man gives to his wife when he
is deathly ill to a gift that he gives under the same circumstances. Rebbi
Aba asks that if we compare the laws of his Get to the laws of his gift,
then we should also rule that just like his gift takes effect after his
death, so, too, his Get should take effect after his death. The Gemara
answers that it is impossible to compare the two with regard to taking
effect after death, since a gift *can* take effect after one's death, while
a Get cannot (with regard to other matters, though, we do compare the two).
What does the Gemara mean when it says that a gift can take effect after the
benefactor's death? Once the benefactor is dead, he cannot give a gift, just
like he cannot give his wife a divorce!
(a) REBBI AKIVA EIGER explains that although a gift cannot take effect after
one's death, in this case the Rabanan made an enactment that it should take
effect after his death. The Rabanan have the power to do so because of the
rule, "Hefker Beis Din Hefker." In contrast, with regard to giving a Get
after death, the Rabanan do not have the power to change a status of Isur
(i.e. the woman's status of Eshes Ish, of being a married woman), and
therefore they cannot create a Get that will take effect after the husband's
death. Rebbi Akiva Eiger remains, though, with the question that although
this is a clear distinction between a gift and a Get, the simple reading of
the Gemara does not imply that it is making such a distinction.
(b) RASHI stresses that a Get cannot take effect after death since, when the
husband dies, the wife is required to do Yibum (if they have no children) at
the time of his death, at which time it is too late to divorce. The MAHARSHA
explains that immediately at the time of the husband's death, the Yibum
relationship (Zikah) takes place and there is no opportunity for the Get to
take effect. In contrast, the acquisition of a gift can take effect
immediately after the benefactor's death. According to this, then, there is
a clear distinction between the ability of a gift to take effect after one's
death and the ability of a Get to take effect.
However, the Acharonim ask that once a person dies, his heirs automatically
inherit his possessions, right away. Why, then, can the gift take effect
after death? As soon as a person dies, the item of the gift belongs to his
The answer might be that there is a basic difference between the Zikah of
Yibum, which takes effect immediately at the time of the man's death, and
the transfer of ownership of the man's inheritance to its heirs. When one
dies, his possessions undergo a change of ownership. Under normal
circumstances, his possessions are automatically transferred to his
descendants. The enactment of the gift of a Shechiv Mera treats this gift
like an inheritance for the recipient (see Bava Basra 149b, where the Gemara
says that the Rabanan treat this gift like a Yerushah, and thus it does not
work for a Ger, who has no Halachah of Yerushah). The Rabanan enacted that
when one gives a Matnas Shechiv Mera, the recipient of the gift is treated
like an heir, and thus the Yerushah process transfers the item to the
recipient of the gift instead of to the other heirs.
With regard to Yibum, the law is that if one dies without children his
marriage has never fully been terminated and she remains partly married to
the brother of her deceased husband (see Rashi in Kedushin 4b, DH she'Chen).
In such a case there is no opportunity for a Get to take effect after the
husband's death (even if the Rabanan did have the power to change the status
of an Isur), since the marriage automatically continues with the Yavam at
the time of the husband's death, before the Get can come and create the
2) WORDS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO A SHALI'ACH
QUESTION: The Gemara says that if a man sends a Shali'ach to sign a Get, the
Shali'ach may not appoint someone else to sign it for him, because "words"
("Mili") cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach. RASHI and the RAN
explain that words cannot be transferred by the first Shali'ach to a second
Shali'ach, meaning that the Shali'ach cannot appoint another Shali'ach to
sign the Get. In such a case, the Shali'ach is transferring the command that
he received, which is just a transfer of words.
3) WHAT TASKS ARE TASKS OF "MILI"
This implies that the first Shali'ach *can* be appointed as a Shali'ach for
"words" as long as he does not transfer the task to another Shali'ach.
This, however seems to contradict the comments of RASHI later (71b, DH
d'Omar) who says that the question of making a Shali'ach for "Mili," words,
is whether a Shali'ach can be appointed at all to perform a mission which
involves only words or speaking. Rashi implies that the question of making a
Shali'ach for "Mili" applies even to the first Shali'ach! How does Rashi
there understand our Gemara?
ANSWER: The CHESHEK SHLOMO answers that there are two issues in our Gemara.
The first issue is whether "Mili" can be transferred to a Shali'ach. This
involves a case in which one Shali'ach was appointed to sign a Get and
afterwards he wants to transfer the command that he received to a second
Second, there is the issue of "Omer Imru," where the sender appoints a
Shali'ach to appoint witnesses who will sign the Get. In such a case the
Shali'ach is not transferring *his* mission to a second party, but rather he
is carrying out his mission! In this case, there is still a discussion
whether such a Shelichus can take effect, since the entire mission of the
Shelichus is nothing more than "Mili," words (to tell others to sign the
Get). In other words, the issue of "Mili" involves whether or not words can
be transferred from one Shali'ach to another, while the issue of "Omer Imru"
involves whether a person can be appointed as a Shali'ach to carry out a
mission which involves only words.
Based on this, the Cheshek Shlomo answers that Rashi later is explaining the
Gemara according to the opinion that holds that "Omer Imru" is not an
acceptable way of appointing a Shali'ach, and therefore the issue is whether
one can become a Shali'ach at all for "Mili," whereas Rashi in our Gemara is
explaining the discussion of "Mili" which is an issue of a Shali'ach
transferring his Shelichus to a second party.
QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Shali'ach who was sent to write and sign a
Get cannot appoint someone else in his place to carry out his mission,
because he is a Shali'ach for a mission of "Mili," words, and "Mili" cannot
be transferred to another Shali'ach. The Gemara in the beginning of the
second Perek of Kidushin derives from verses that a person who was appointed
to be a Shali'ach to bring or to receive a Get *may* appoint another
Shali'ach in his place. Why is the case of our Gemara considered "Mili" and
not the case of delivering a Get?
(a) RASHI here says that appointing a Shali'ach to deliver a Get in not
considered "Mili" because the Shali'ach physically receives the Get from the
husband and therefore he can transfer the Get to a second Shali'ach. In
contrast, a Shali'ach appointed to write or sign a Get does not have
anything tangible in his hands to transfer to the second Shali'ach.
(b) The TOSFOS RID in Kidushin says that a Shali'ach appointed to deliver a
Get is not a Shali'ach for "Mili" because he is holding the actual document
of the husband that must be delivered directly to the wife. In contrast to
Rashi's view, according to the Tosfos Rid's logic, it is not enough for the
Shali'ach to be holding any object that was given to him by the sender.
Rather, he must be holding the object that will be used to create the
transaction for the sender. (According to Rashi, appointing a Shali'ach to
deliver money for Kidushin is not considered "Mili," while but according to
the Tosfos Rid, it *is* considered "Mili" since the Shali'ach does not have
to give to the bride the actual money that he received from the man, for he
can give other coins (of the same value) and the Kidushin will still take
(c) The KADOSH M'RADUSH quoted by the MORDECHAI in Kidushin says that as
long as the Shali'ach does not have the power to complete the transaction,
his appointment is considered "Mili." According to his logic, only a
Shali'ach to deliver a Get is not "Mili" since the Shali'ach can deliver the
Get even without the wife's consent, but a Shali'ach for Kidushin, who needs
the bride's consent in order to give her the money, and a Shali'ach to write
a Get, who does not have the power to create the divorce but merely to write
the document of divorce, *are* considered appointments of "Mili."
(d) The RASHBA in Kidushin says that the Gemara in Kidushin is referring to
a case in which the wife told the Shali'ach to appoint another Shali'ach for
her. Such a case is not "Mili" but rather it is a case of "Omer Imru" (see
previous Insight), and therefore the Shelichus is valid. (According to Rashi
and the Tosfos Rid, we must say that the Gemara in Kidushin which says that
a Shali'ach can appoint another Shali'ach is referring only to a Shali'ach
appointed to *deliver* a Get. A Shali'ach appointed to *receive* a Get may
*not* appoint another Shali'ach, since receiving the Get is considered
"Mili.") (See also MORDECHAI to our Gemara.)