(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 24

GITIN 24 & 25 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.



(a) Rav Ashi just substantiated Abaye's opinion from the Seifa of our Mishnah - which concludes 'u'Vil'vad she'Hi Tzerichah Lomar be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', proving that the Tana there too, is referring to Chutz la'Aretz. Rav Yosef (who himself established that the previous Mishnah of Suma [referred to as 'the Reisha'] refers to Chutz la'Aretz) counters Abaye's proof - by establishing the Reisha and the Seifa by Chutz la'Aretz, and the Metzi'asa ('Af ha'Nashim she'Einan Ne'emanos Lomar Meis Ba'alah ... ') to Eretz Yisrael.


1. And he extrapolates this from the words ' ... Mah Bein Get le'Misah, she'ha'K'sav Mochi'ach'* - whereas had the Tana been speaking about Chutz la'Aretz, he should have said 'she'ha'K'sav ve'ha'Peh Mochi'ach'.
2. Abaye explains 'she'ha'K'sav Mochi'ach' - to incorporate 'Peh', because the Tana is really distinguishing between Peh of Get and Peh of Misah (Rashi).
(a) The Tana permits a woman to bring her own Get from overseas. She is not divorced the moment she receives it - because he is speaking when her husband appointed her a Sheli'ach le'Halachah.

(b) We refute the suggestion ...

1. ... of Rav Huna, that her husband stipulated that she would only become divorced when she reached such-and-such a Beis-Din - because then, having fulfilled her husband's condition, she would be divorced immediately upon arrival. This has nothing to do with Shelichus, and there would therefore be no reason for her to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
2. ... of Rav Achah Brei de'Rav Ika, that the Tana speaks when her husband stipulated that she was to place the Get on the ground there, and to become divorced when she picked it up - because of Rava, who already taught that if a man instructs his wife 'T'li Gitech me'Al-gabei Karka', she is not divorced (since he has not fulfilled the Pasuk "ve'Nasan be'Yadah").
(c) We finally establish our Mishnah - when her husband appointed her a Sheli'ach le'Holachah, but only until she reached the Beis-Din in question. Once she arrived there, her Shelichus would terminate and she would receive the Get (so to speak) from the Sheli'ach.
(a) We attempt to refute the final answer too, on the grounds that 've'Ha Lo Chazrah Shelichus Eitzel ha'Ba'al' - meaning that for a She'lichus to be valid, it must be possible for the Sheli'ach, the moment the Shelichus terminates, to return to the Meshalei'ach and report back to him. This is not possible here, because the Sheli'ach has turned into the recipient.

(b) One of the reasons that a woman is not permitted to accept her Get from her husband's Sheli'ach is because it is demeaning to her husband's dignity not to accept the Get directly from his Sheli'ach. Others say that it is - because of its similarity to a Chatzer that she obtains only after the Get has been thrown into it (where the Get will not be valid, because a Chatzer does not acquire in the capacity of a Sheli'ach, but of a Yad [as we explained earlier]).

(c) The current problem would not exist according to the first reason - because the husband has clearly indicated that he does not in the least mind her accepting the Get from his Sheli'ach.

(d) According to the second reason, we answer that the Tana speaks when her husband instructed her that, upon arrival at her destination, she is to appoint another Sheli'ach le'Holachah and accept the Get from him, or even to appoint the Beis-Din as Sheluchim. A Sheli'ach le'Holachah can indeed appoint a second Sheli'ach le'Holachah - provided he does so in Beis-Din, after having declared 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Meivi Get (Basra)' *****

***** Perek Kol ha'Get *****


(a) The example the Tana gives of ...
1. ... a Get that is written she'Lo Lish'mah is - when a man hears a Sofer who is writing a Get reading out aloud (the hypothetical case of) how so-and-so is divorcing so- and-so who resides ... , and all the details happen to concur with his own, so he steps inside and asks the Sofer for that particular Get.
2. ... a Get that is actually written Lish'mah and yet it is Pasul - if the Get was written for Reuven, who then changed his mind about divorcing his wife, and who then gives it to someone else whose details tally with his own.
3. ... a Get that is even written specifically on behalf of the man's wife, yet it is still Pasul - if he happened to have two wives with the same name, wrote a Get for one of them and then decided to give it to the other one.
(b) The case where the Get is even written on behalf of the woman who eventually receives it, yet it is still Pasul is - when he wrote it for whichever of his two wives he would decide to divorce, arriving at a decision only afterwards.

(c) The Get is not valid - because of the principle 'Ein B'reirah'.




(a) The second case in our Mishnah speaks when the man changed his mind about divorcing his wife; whereas the first case (when he heard the Sofer announcing the details that tallied with his own) - speaks about student Sofrim who are learning the Dinim of Safrus (but not writing actual Gitin), explains Rav Papa.

(b) Rav Ashi proves this from the Lashon 'Sofrin Makrin' - implying that the teachers were reading out the text to the students (as opposed to 'Sofrin Korin', which would mean the real thing).

(a) The Tana writes 'Yeser mi'Kein' by each subsequent case, because it is indeed a bigger Chidush than the previous one. Had the Torah just written ...
1. ... "ve'Nasan Sefer Kerisus be'Yadah" (and omitted "ve'Kasav") - we would have invalidated the first case, where the Get was not written for the purpose of divorce at all, but not the second case, where it was.
2. ... "ve'Kasav Sefer Kerisus ve'Nasan be'Yadah" (and not "ve'Kasav *Lah*") - we would have invalidated the second case, where the Get was not written for this man's wife, but not the third, where it was.
(b) We learn from "Lah" - that even if the Get was written for this man's wife, it is invalid if it was not written on behalf of the specific woman that he intends to divorce.
(a) We learned in out Mishnah, that if a man with two wives with the same name, writes a Get for one of them, he may not divorce the other one. This implies that he may divorce the wife for whom the Get was written. We might have thought otherwise - due to the fear that he may have written the Get for the second wife,, who subsequently dropped it and this one found it.

(b) Rava extrapolates from here - that if two Yosef ben Shimon reside in the same town, the one is believed to produce a Sh'tar against a third party (and we are not afraid that maybe the Sh'tar was written on behalf of his friend, who lost it).

(c) Abaye counters Rava's proof however, from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Sh'mi ke'Shimcha, Pasul Legaresh Bo', which similarly implies that the person for whom the Get was originally written is permitted to divorce his wife with that Get, even though there is someone else with the same name in his town. But this clashes with the Mishnah in Bava Basra, which states - that a third person may not produce a Sh'tar against one of the two Yosef ben Shimons (or one Yosef ben Shimon against the other), in which case, the woman would not be permitted to claim her Kesuvah from her husband with this Get.

(d) Abaye therefore establishes both Mishnahs - when there are Eidei Mesirah who recognize the recipient of the Get, in which case there is nothing to fear (and the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar). By doing so, he negates his own Kashya and Rava's proof with one stroke.

(a) According to Rav, despite the fact that all the Gitin in our Mishnah (except for one) are Pasul, they nevertheless disqualify the woman from marrying a Kohen or from remaining with her husband, in the event that he is a Kohen - because of the principle that 'Rei'ach ha'Get Posel' (meaning that even a Get that is not Kasher will invalidate a woman, as long as it has the trimmings of one.

(b) The exception to this is - the first case, where the Get was not written for Gerushin at all, and does not fall under the category of 'Rei'ach ha'Get'.

(c) The source of Rei'ach ha'Get is - the Pasuk "ve'Ishah Gerushah me'Iyshah Lo Yikachu", implying that a Kohen is even forbidden to marry a woman who is only divorced from her husband, even though (due a stipulation made by the husband) she is not permitted to anyone else.

(d) Shmuel, who is even more stringent than Rav, follows his own ruling in Yevamos. He says ...

1. ... here - that all the Gitin in our Mishnah are Pasul, even the last one.
2. ... there - that ...
a. ... wherever Chazal use the term 'Get Pasul' - they mean that the Get is Pasul, but that it nevertheless invalidates the woman from Kehunah.
b. ... wherever Chazal use the term 'Chalitzah Pesulah' - they mean that the Chalitzah is Pasul, but that it nevertheless invalidates the woman from Yibum with any of the brothers, and he learns it from " ... Asher Lo Yivneh es Beis Achiv", which the Torah writes in the future tense, to teach us that, since he did not build his brother's house (by performing Chalitzah), he will not get a second chance.
(a) Rebbi Elazar is quoted in Eretz Yisrael differently than Shmuel, with regard to Chalitzah Pesulah. The basic distinction that he makes between 'Chaltzah bi'S'mol u'va'Laylah' on the one hand, and 'Katan (she'Chalatz) ve'Anpilya' on the other is - that although neither pair is valid, the former invalidates the woman from Yibum, seeing as she did perform Chalitzah (even though it was not performed strictly in accordance with the Halachah); whereas the latter (which contravenes the specific Pesukim 'Ish' and 'Na'al'), is not considered a Chalitzah at all, and does not invalidate the woman.

(b) Ze'iri and Rav maintain that all the cases in our Mishnah do not invalidate the woman from marrying a Kohen except for the last one - which intrinsically conforms with all the Dinim of Get, and is only Pasul because of the external P'sul of B'reirah (and in his opinion, we say 'Yesh B'reirah' le'Chumra.

(c) The last opinion is that of Rebbi Yochanan - who agrees with Ze'iri and Rav Asi regarding all the Gitin in our Mishnah that are intrinsically Pasul. And as far as the last case is concerned, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein B'reirah', as we shall now see, in which case, there too, the woman will not be invalidated from Kehunah.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,