(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 27

GITIN 27 - Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of New Jersey have dedicated this Daf in memory of Marcia's mother, Esther Friedman (Esther Chaya Raizel bat Gershom Eliezer) and father, Hyman Smulevitz (Chaim Yisochar ben Yaakov).



(a) If the Sheli'ach who is bringing the Get loses it and then finds it again, our Mishnah rules that sometimes the Get is Kosher and sometimes it is not. It is Kasher - if he finds it immediately.

(b) The Get is not Kasher should he find it only later - because of the possibility that it is not the Get that he lost, but that someone else lost.

(c) The Get will be Kasher even if he finds it only later - should he find it inside a receptacle that can be clearly identified.

(d) In the event that the Sheli'ach recognizes the Get, it will be Kasher (though it is unclear why we should rely on the recognition of someone who is not a Talmid-Chacham).

(a) The Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a rules that someone who finds Gitei Nashim or other Sh'taros, should not return them to either party, not even to the person who is named as the recipient - in case the one who wrote it changed his mind, and did not hand it over to the recipient.

(b) This ruling clashes with our Mishnah - because it implies that, if the one who wrote the Sh'tar instructed the finder to hand it over to the recipient, then he would indeed be obligated to do so, even if a long time had elapsed from the time that it was lost.

(c) Rabah therefore establishes our Mishnah in a location where many caravans stop (similar to a modern bus-station), where the Get could have fallen from one of many travelers, whereas the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is speaking in a place which is not so well frequented.

(d) We add to this - the condition that another Yosef ben Shimon (besides the one who lost it) is known to reside in the same town, before the Tana of our Mishnah will invalidate the Get.

1. Rav Huna ruled - that the Get that was found in his Beis-Din, and in which the Sofer had written 'in Sheviri the town that is on the River Nachis', was invalid.
2. Rav Chisda instructed Rabah - to go out and investigate what the Halachah would be in that particular case (because he knew that Rav Huna would ask him about it the following day).
3. Rabah extrapolated from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din Yachzir' - that the Sh'tar which Rav Huna had invalidated was actually Kasher, seeing as it had been substantiated by Beis-Din, and there was no longer any suspicion that the husband had written the Get but not yet handed it over.
(b) We can now extrapolate from Rabah's ruling there - that he is of the opinion that a Sh'tar is Kasher, even if it is found in a public place (which Rav Huna's Beis-Din certainly was), as long as it has not been established that another Yosef ben Shimon resides in the same town.

(c) When a Get was found in the flax-house of Pumbedisa - Rabah ruled that it should be returned, because two flaws are required in order to invalidate a Get that is not found immediately, and in this case, there was only one.

(d) Some say that it was the house where they soaked the flax; whereas according to others, it was the house where they sold it. In the former case - the location was not well-frequented but another Yosef ben Shimon was known to reside in the same town; whereas in the latter case - the location was well-frequented but no other Yosef ben Shimon was known to reside there.

(a) The Tana in a Beraisa rules that if someone finds a Get in the street, then, assuming that the husband agrees, he must return it to the woman (even after a long time). Rebbi Zeira reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah, (which invalidates a Sh'tar that the Sheli'ach lost and found only later, for fear that this may not be the Get that he lost) - by establishing the latter when the Get was lost in a location that is well-frequented (like Rabah did above), and the former, in a location that is not.

(b) Whether the Beraisa speaks when there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the same town or not - is subject to two opinions; some say that it speaks even when there are (like Rabah), and others, when there are not, in which case Rebbi Zeira argues with Rabah.

(c) Should the husband not admit that he wrote the Get, the finder does not return it to either of them. He does return it to the woman, because of the fear that she will use it to remarry, even if she is not divorced. and he does return it to the husband - because of the fear that she is really divorved, and even when she later brings Eidei Mesirah to prove it, and when she claims her Kesuvah, he will produce the Get and claim that he already paid her, and she gave him the Get as a receipt.




(a) The reason that ...
1. ... Rabah prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a ('Matza Gitei Nashim ... Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir, she'Ani Omer ... ') is - because it is preferable to ask from one Mishnah on another Mishnah that on a Beraisa.
2. ... Rebbi Zeira prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Beraisa ('Matza Get Ishah ba'Shuk, bi'Z'man she'ha'Ba'al Modeh, Yachzir la'Ishah ... ') - because there is nothing in the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a to suggest that the Get was not found immediately after it was lost.
(b) The Beraisa implies that it speaks after a long time more than the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a because otherwise, there would be no Chidush, since it is obvious that, if the Kesuvah was lost and found immediately, and the husband also admits that he wrote it, it is Kasher; whereas the Chidush in the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a lies in the actual Halachah 'Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir' (irrespective of the inference, which is the topic of discussion).
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah explains that the witnesses testify that they only signed on one Sh'tar with these two names on it - in order to resolve both the Kashya of Rabah and that of Rebbi Zeira. Both the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a and the Beraisa speak in such a case.

(b) The Chidush will then be - that we do not go so far as to suspect that not only are there two couples with identical names, but that there are even two sets of witnesses with identical names, who signed on two different Sh'taros.

(c) Rav Ashi establishes the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a and the Beraisa when the person who lost the Sh'tar testifies that there is a hole beside such and such a letter. The reason that he requires such a strong Si'man (and not make do with a hole anywhere on the Sh'tar) - is because he is not sure that Simanim (which are not Muvhakim [well-defined]) are d'Oraysa, in which case Si'manim Muvhakim (which are definitely d'Oraysa) are required.

(a) When Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis-ha'Medrash, they returned it to him for one of two possible reasons - either because of Si'manim or because of Tevi'as Ayin (recognition).

(b) The difference between the two reasons is - whether the Get would have been returned under the same circumstances to someone who was not a Talmid-Chacham (who is believed regarding Tevi'as Ayin but not regarding Si'manim (assuming they are not d'Oraysa).

(c) It is necessary to say that Rabah bar bar Chanah gave Si'manim that were not Muvhakim - because if they were, there would have been no Safek why they returned the Get to him, and there would have been no difference between Rabah bar bar Chanah and anybody else.

(d) Assuming that Beis-Din returned him the Get on the basis of Si'manim, they must have held that 'Simanim d'Oraysa' - because if Simanim were mi'de'Rabbanan, then they would be effective in the realm of money-matters (where Beis-Din have the power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'), but not in cases of Isur, such as permitting a married woman to re-marry.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Sheli'ach who loses a Get and then finds it is believed that the Get that he found is the one he lost provided he finds it immediately. The Tana'im in a Beraisa argue over the meaning of 'immediately'. According to Rebbi Nasan, it means within the time it takes for a caravan to stop there and camp.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar gives the Shiur as the time it takes for a person to keep check that nobody passed by - meaning that nobody passed by the location of the lost Get from the time it was lost until it was found.

(c) 'Yesh Omrim' is slightly more lenient. According to him, it doesn't matter if someone passed by that location - as long as he did not stop there.

(d) Rebbi gives the Shiur as within the time it takes to write a Get.

1. Rebbi Yitzchak says - the time it takes to read it?
2. 'Acheirim' says - the time it takes to write a Get and read it.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like 'Yesh Omrim' (within the time it takes for someone to keep check that nobody stopped at that location); Rabah bar bar Chanah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel - like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ( ... that nobody passed by that location).

(b) They not just say 'Halachah ke' ... ', rather than state the Halachah as if it was their own opinion - because they switch the Tana'im's opinions, and to have just say 'Halachah ke' ... ' would have been confusing.

(a) With regard to the Get itself, the Beraisa describes ...
1. ... a hole besides a certain letter as an acceptable Si'man.
2. ... long or short Get as an unacceptable Si'man.
(b) If he finds it after the required time has elapsed ...
1. ... tied to a purse or to a ring, which he recognizes - the Get is Kasher.
2. ... in a drawer in his house - the Get is Kasher, too.
(c) Our Mishnah validates the Get even after the required time has elapsed, if the Sheli'ach finds it in a Chafisah or a Delusk'ma.
1. Rabah bar bar Chanah describes a 'Chafisah' as - a leather shepherd's bag ...
2. ... a 'Delusk'ma' as a - an old man's satchel.
Next daf


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