ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 21
GITIN 21 - This Daf has been dedicated by Eitan Fish of N.Y., in memory of
his illustrious ancestor Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Blazer (a.k.a. "Reb Itzele
Peterburger," author of "Kochevei Or" and "Pri Yitzchak"), one of the
leading Talmidim of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Salanter Ztz"l. He passed away 11 Av
5667 (1907) in Yerushalayim.
(a) Rava says that if a man gives the Get for his wife to his slave, whom he
writes out as a gift to her - that she acquires the slave and the Get is
(b) A walking Chatzer - cannot acquire for its owner?
(c) The woman is divorced when her Get is brought by her slave - because we
are talking about a slave who is trussed up, and unable to walk.
(d) We cannot answer that it speaks when the woman received the Get whilst
the slave was standing still - because Rava has already talk that 'a Chatzer
that cannot acquire whilst it is walking, cannot acquire when it is standing
(a) Rava repeats the same Halachah with regard to a Get which the husband
placed in his Chatzer, before being Makneh her the Chatzer. We might have
thought that the woman is not divorced ...
1. ... in the latter case (when the Get is in the Chatzer) even though she
is in the former (when the Get is on the slave) - because there we might
have decreed on account of 'Chatzer ha'Ba'ah le'Achar mi'Ka'an' (a Chatzer
that comes afterwards).
(b) The case of 'Chatzer ha'Ba'ah le'Achar mi'Ka'an' is - where her husband
placed her Get in somebody else's Chatzer, who subsequently sold it or gave
it to her. The woman is not divorced, because it was not her husband who
gave her the Get.
2. ... in the former case, even though she is divorced in the latter case -
because there we might have thought that we will decree a slave that is
trussed up on account of one that is not.
(a) Based on the assumption that Chatzer is derived from Yad, Abaye asks on
Rava - that, since Chatzer is derived from Yad, just as the Yad of a woman
can receive her divorce even against her will, her Chatzer must be able to
do likewise, and the slave in our case cannot acquire against her will,
seeing as she has the right to decline to accept the gift.
(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks on Abaye from a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah (who is
appointed by the woman), who can only be appointed with the woman's consent,
even though Yad can acquire against her will? Abaye refutes this Kashya on
the grounds that ...
1. ... he considers Rav Shimi bar Ashi's theory erroneous - because
Shelichus is not derived from Yad (like Chatzer is), but from the Pasuk
2. ... Shelichus le'Kabalah can also occur against her will - there where
her father appointed a Sheli'ach to receive her Get.
(a) Considering that it is possible to sever the horn from the cow, we ask
why the Tana of our Mishnah requires the husband to give his wife the cow on
whose horn the Get is written. We do not ask the same Kashya with regard to
the Get that is written on the slave's hand - because it would be forbidden
to cut it off, seeing that he is obligated to fulfill all the Mitzvos.
(b) We answer the initial Kashya - by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ...
ve'Nasan Lah", implying that the sequence is writing and immediately giving,
and not writing severing and giving (i.e. that nothing should need to
interrupt between the writing of the Get and giving it to the woman).
(a) The Torah writes "ve'Kasav Lah Sefer Kerisus". If, as Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili understands, "Sefer" is restrictive, and consequently "ve'Kasav
Lah" comes to validate any surface for writing a Get, he will learn from
"Sefer" - that a Get written on anything that has life or that is eaten is
(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because the Torah
writes "Sefer", and not "ba'Sefer".
(c) According to them - the word "Sefer", merely comes to teach that one
should record the required wording of the Get on any surface.
(d) The Rabbanan, who do not need a Pasuk to include any surface (seeing as
"Sefer" does imply a restriction) learn from "ve'Kasav Lah" that a woman can
only be divorced through Kesivah (a Get), but not through money. We would
otherwise have thought that she can - because of the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah
ve'Haysah", which compares Gitin to Kidushin.
(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the juxtaposition of "Sefer" to
"Kerisus" - what the Rabbanan learn from "ve'Kasav" (that a woman can only
be divorced through Kesivah [a Get], but not through money).
(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus" - that the Get must sever all
connections between husband and wife.
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns this from "Kares" 'Kerisus'. According to
the Rabbanan - "Kareis" 'Kerisus' does not imply two D'rashos.
(d) Based on the previous D'rashah, if a man says to his wife 'Here is your
Get on condition that you ...
1. ... never go back to your father's house' - the divorce is not valid
(because their relations will never be completely severed.
2. ... do not return to your father's house for thirty days' - it is,
because in thirty days time, their relations will be completely severed.
(a) One cannot write a Get on Mechubar (something that is connected to the
ground - because of the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ve'Nasan" and not 've'Kasav,
(b) The Tana Kama says - that a Get that is written on Mechubar is valid,
provided it was Talush (detached) before it was signed and handed over.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah requires the Kesivah, as well as the Chasimah, to take
place on Talush.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira invalidates a Get that is written on paper on
which something was already written and erased, and one that was written on
Diftera (which will be explained later) - because we suspect that the woman
will erase any condition that her husband wrote on the Get, and because the
parchment has already been written on, it will not be noticeable.
(b) The Chachamim - validate it.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and many other Amora'im explain that when, after
invalidating a Get that is written on Mechubar, the Tana then goes on to
teach us what the Din will be if it was - he is speaking when the husband
only wrote the Tofeis (the secondary details), but left the Toref (the names
of the husband, the wife and the date) blank, to fill in after it was
(b) The author of our Mishnah, which requires the Kesivah of the Get to be
on Talush, but not necessarily the Chasimah, must be Rebbi Elazar (who does
not require Chasimah min ha'Torah).
(c) Despite the fact that the main part of the Get is the Toref, Rebbi
Elazar nevertheless forbids writing the Tofeis on Mechubar - because he
decrees the Tofeis on account of the Toref.
(a) Resh Lakish establishes the Seifa by the Chasimah (meaning that in the
Seifa, the Tana comes to stress that the Chasimah was performed be'Talush) -
in which case, the author will be Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Eidei Chasimah
Karsi'. Consequently, it is the Chasimah which must be performed be'Talush.
(b) Resh Lakish explains ...
1. ... the Reisha ('Ein Kosvin') to mean - that one may not *write* the
Toref on Mechubar, in case one comes to *sign* it bi'Mechubar.
2. ... the Seifa ('Kasvo bi'Mechubar ... ') - that even if he did write the
Toref bi'Mechubar, it is still Kasher, as long as he had it signed
(a) If a man writes a Get on a holed flower-pot and gives it to his wife,
she is divorced. We might have thought otherwise - because he may first
break the flower-pot into pieces and give her the piece containing the Get
(which would be Pasul because of "ve'Kasav ve'Nasan" and not 've'Kasav
(b) According to Abaye, the same will apply to a Get that he wrote on a leaf
that is growing in a holed flower-pot. Rava however, holds -that the Get is
Pasul in case the husband decides to detach the leaf before handing the Get
to his wife, which will be Pasul because, seeing as the flower-pot is holed,
the leaf is considered joined to the ground, and he will have picked the Get
from Mechubar, which is Pasul?
(c) The reason that Rava validates the Get that is written on the
flower-pot, but invalidates the one that is written on a leaf is - because
whereas in the latter case, he is likely to tear off the leaf before handing
it to his wife, in the former, he is unlikely to break the flower-pot,
spoiling a useful object (see Tosfos Rid, beginning of 22a).