(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 29

GITIN 29 & 30 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.



(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yosef restricts our Mishnah to a Beis-Din shel Akum. It is only there that we give a 'Yotze Lehareg' a Chezkas Chayim - because Nochrim are prone to take bribes (even after the death-sentence has been passed).

(b) We will not do so in the case of Beis-Din shel Yisrael however - because even though it is possible for Beis-Din to acquit someone who has already received the death-sentence, it is so rare for this to happen that we do not contend with it.

(c) There is no proof for Rav Yosef from the Beraisa of Bore'ach, where we put the sentenced man to death on the testimony of the witnesses, and do not contend with the possibility that he may have been acquitted - because Bore'ach might well be different, as we explained earlier.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits a Sheli'ach ha'Get in Eretz Yisrael who becomes sick, to appoint another Sheli'ach in his place - even outside of Beis-Din.

(b) The Halachah will differ in the event that the husband asked the Sheli'ach to take a specific object from his wife when handing her the Get - because of the principle 'Ein Retzoni she'Yehei Pikdoni be'Yad Acher' (the assumption that the owner of an object who asks one person to look after it, expects him to do so and nobody else). Consequently, the original Sheli'ach will not have the authority to appoint a Sheli'ach in his place.

(c) Should the Sheli'ach appoint another Sheli'ach, in this latter case) - the Get will nevertheless be valid, since the Shelichus of the Get and that of the object are not interdependent (as we shall see shortly).

(d) The Sheli'ach is ...

1. ... not permitted to appoint another Sheli'ach to take the Get to the Meshale'ach's wife unless he is sick, explains Rav Kahana (because the Tana means exactly what he said,and not just stating the norm.).
2. ... permitted to appoint another Sheli'ach - in the case of other Onsin.
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa makes a distinction between a Sheli'ach ha'Get to whom the Meshale'ach said 'Holech Get Zeh le'Ishti' and one to whom he said '*At(ah)* Holech ... ' - permitting the former to appoint a Sheli'ach, but forbidding the latter.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says simply - 'Ein Sheli'ach Oseh Sheli'ach'.

(c) Assuming that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids the Sheli'ach to a appoint a Sheli'ach under any circumstances, and the author of our Mishnah is the Rabbanan - the Beraisa might be speaking when the Sheli'ach became sick, and that is when they permit 'Holech' (but not 'At(ah) Holech'), and that is also the case in our Mishnah; or the Beraisa might speak when the Sheli'ach did not become sick, but when he did, they will permit even 'At(ah) Holech', and that is the case in our Mishnah.

(d) Assuming that the author of our Mishnah is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, we will establish ...

1. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Beraisa - when the Sheli'ach is not sick, and in the Mishnah when he is.
2. ... the Rabbanan in the Beraisa also speak when the Sheli'ach is not sick, but when he is, even if the Meshale'ach said 'Holech At', he may appoint a Sheli'ach.
(a) The Mishnah later in 'ha'Omer' states that if someone asks two people to give a Get (as yet unwritten) to his wife or three people to write and give it to her - they are obligated to write the Get and hand it to his wife, implying that only they must do it and nobody else?

(b) We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which permits the Sheli'ach to appoint a Sheli'ach (even when he is not sick, according to one of the previous opinions) - by attributing the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer' to the husband's embarrassment at not knowing how to write the Get himself (whilst no such reason will apply here).

(a) According to Rava, the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer' is different because it is 'Mili' - words (since he is not Makneh anything tangible to the Sheli'ach [such as a Sh'tar] in making him a Sheli'ach); and words are not something that one Sheli'ach can hand to another.

(b) The ramifications of the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava are - in the case of a Sheli'ach brings a Sh'tar Matanah, which on the one hand is 'Mili' (and which one Sheli'ach can therefore not hand over to another), but on the other, the onus of writing it lies with the recipient (in which case, there is no reason for the Meshale'ach to be embarrassed).

(c) In fact, the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not a new Machlokes - since Rav and Shmuel have already argued over the same point before; Rav holds 'Matanah Einah ke'Get' (like Abaye), whereas Shmuel says 'Matanah ke'Get' (like Rava).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the Meshale'ach instructed the Sheli'ach to take a certain object from his wife, he is not permitted to appoint another Sheli'ach. The important (dual) principle that Rebbi is coming to teach us here, according to Resh Lakish is - that 'Ein ha'Sho'el Rashai Lehash'il, ve'Ein ha'Socher Rashai Lehaskir'.

(b) When he wrote 'Lo Yeshalchenu be'Yad Acher', he might also have meant to say - that the Shelichus is nullified too.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish's interpretation of 'Lo Yeshalchenu be'Yad Acher' on the grounds - that every child knows that 'Ein ha'Sho'el Rashai Lehash'il ... '.

(b) So he interprets it to mean - that sometimes the Get becomes invalid too.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan holds ...

1. ... that the Get is nevertheless valid (like Resh Lakish) - there where the woman actually handed the second Sheli'ach the object before receiving her Get from him (in which case it well make no difference what the husband had said).
2. ... that it is not (as if the Meshale'ach had instructed the Sheli'ach to hand her the Get in the house, and he went and handed it to her in the attic) - there where the husband specifically instructed the first Sheli'ach to take the object first, and the second Sheli'ach reversed the order, taking the object only after handing her the Get. (which we consider as if Rebbi Yochanan holds ...
(d) In this latter case (the case about which they argue), there is in fact, no difference between the original Sheli'ach and the Sheli'ach whom he appointed, neither according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan, nor according to ...
2. ... Resh Lakish - whose reason is because people are generally not particular about such irrelevant matters.



(a) The Din of a Sheli'ach who is delivering a Get from Chutz la'Aretz differs from one who is delivering it in Eretz Yisrael with regard to appointing another Sheli'ach - inasmuch as he is obligated to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' in front of a Beis-Din.

(b) The original Sheli'ach makes the declaration, as he hands it to the second Sheli'ach in front of Beis-Din.

(c) Upon handing the woman the Get, the second Sheli'ach merely states - that he is a Sheli'ach Beis-Din (and we assume that the first Beis-Din ensured that the handing over was done properly).

1. ... Avimi the son of Rebbi Avahu extrapolated (in response to the Rabbanan's She'eilah) from the fact that our Mishnah says 'Ein ha'Sheli'ach *Acharon* Tzarich she'Yomar be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', rather than '*ha'Sheini*' - that the second Sheli'ach is permitted to appoint a third one (and so on ad infinitum).
2. ... the Rabbanan extrapolate (in response to Avimi's version of the She'eilah) from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Ela Omer Sheli'ach Beis-Din Ani' - that the third Sheli'ach is then obligated to state that he is Sheli'ach Beis-Din.
(b) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Rabbanan asked Avimi whether a second Sheli'ach who appoints a third Sheli'ach requires a Beis-Din or not - to which Avimi replied 'Why don't you first ask whether or not, the second Sheli'ach can appoint a third one?

(c) The Rabbanan answered him from the Lashon 'Acharon' used by the Tana in our Mishnah (like he answered them in the first Lashon). Avimi then resolved their She'eilah - from 'Ela Omer Sheli'ach Beis-Din Ani' (like they answered him in the first Lashon).

(a) Rava - permits the second Sheli'ach to appoint a third Sheli'ach ... in Eretz Yisrael, even though this is not done in front of Veis-Din (see Tosfos Rid DH 'Amar Rava').

(b) Mar bar Rav Ashi said about his father's ruling (that the moment the first Sheli'ach dies, all the other Shelichus become nullified) - that, due to its inaccuracy, he must have said it in his youth, because the subsequent Shelichus depends on the life of the husband, and not on that of the first Sheli'ach.

(c) Consequently, this will be the case only if - the husband dies.

(a) When a prospective Sheli'ach initially declined to accept the Shelichus on the grounds that he would not be able to recognize the Meshale'ach's wife - the Meshale'ach instructed him to give the Get to Aba bar Minyumi, who would.

(b) The Sheli'ach did not find Aba bar Minyumi, but he did find Rebbi Avahu, Rebbi Chanina bar Papa and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha - who suggested that he declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' and hand the Get to them, and they in turn, would hand it to Aba bar Minyumi when they saw him next.

(c) Rava was full of praise for the young Rav Safra, who was sitting with them at the time, and whose comment stumped them. He commented - that since the Sheli'ach's instructions were to hand the Get to Aba bar Minyumi (and not to his wife), he had no authority to hand the Get to anyone else.

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with Rava, on the grounds that the Meshale'ach in no way objected to the Sheli'ach handing the Get directly to his wife. On the contrary, that was what he asked to do originally; he only instructed him to hand it to Aba bar Minyumi when he claimed not to know his wife.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava and Rav Ashi reverse their opinions. According to this Lashon, it is ...
1. ... Rava who comments - that Rav Safra's victory was in error (because the husband did not object ... ).
2. ... and Rav Ashi who retorted - that he was right, because at the end of the day, the husband appointed Aba bar Minyumi as the Sheli'ach, and not the original Sheli'ach.
(b) Rava advised a certain Sheli'ach who was told not to deliver the Get before thirty days, but who knew that he would be unable to fulfill his Shelichus then - to hand him the Get, seeing as he was an O'nes, and he would appoint another Sheli'ach after thirty days.

(c) When the Rabbanan queried his idea, seeing as the Sheli'ach was not a Sheli'ach for Gerushin at that moment - he replied that this did not matter, seeing as he was an eligible Sheli'ach after thirty days.

(d) The problem with the thirty day delay is - the strong possibility that the husband will appease his wife and will be intimate with her before the Get has been delivered, rendering this a Get Yashan.

(a) The above problem is based on a Mishnah in 'Mi she'Ochzo' 'me'Achshav im Lo Ba'asi mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Meis be'Soch Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get'. We are not afraid there that the husband appeased his wife and was intimate with her, rendering the Get a Get Yashan - because, as Rabah bar Rav Huna explained in the name of ... Rav, the Tana speaks when the husband stipulated that his wife was to be believed to say that they had not been intimate.

(b) We do not suspect by every Sheli'ach that by the time the Sheli'ach arrives at his destination, the husband may have appeased his wife - because there, since he did not fix a time period, he will always think that the Sheli'ach arrived there before him.

(c) Rava was embarrassed by the Rabbanan's Kashya (regarding Get Yashan). What he did not initially know however, was - that the couple were not married, only engaged, and that the suspicion of Get Yashan was therefore not practical.

(d) Rava asks whether, when the second Sheli'ach appoints a third one, it must be in the presence of the first Sheli'ach or not. His own resolution conformed with 'Shalchu mi'Tam' who ruled - 'Bein be'Fanav, Bein she'Lo be'Fanav'.

Next daf


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