ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 32
GITIN 32 (16 Adar) - dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory
of his father, Reb Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak, on the day of his
***** Perek ha'Shole'ach Get *****
(a) Now that it is possible to cancel the Shelichus of a Get - it will make
no difference whether he intercepts the Sheli'ach ...
1. ... personally, or whether he sends a Sheli'ach after him to do so.
(b) Neither will it make any difference whether he informs his wife directly
that he has canceled the Shelichus, or whether he sends her a Sheli'ach to
2. ... or whether he goes directly to his wife and informs her that the
Shelichus is canceled.
(a) All that we just learned applies after Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken's Takanah.
Before the Takanah - he was even permitted to form a Beis-Din and cancel the
Shelichus without the Sheli'ach or the woman knowing about the cancellation.
(b) Raban Gamliel instituted this Takanah - because he was worried that the
Sheli'ach, not knowing about the cancellation, will hand the Get to the
woman, who, not knowing about it either, will use the Get to go and remarry
(when in fact, she is still married), and all her children from her second
husband will be Mamzerim.
(a) The Tana writes 've'Higi'a ba'Sheli'ach', intimating that he met him by
chance (rather than 've'Higi'o' [meaning that he made a point of catching up
with him]) - to teach us that he fact that he did not make any effort to
catch up with him, does not mean that he is merely pulling his wife's leg;
but that, in spite of his casual approach, he really meant to cancel the
(b) And he found it necessary to add the case ...
1. ... 'O she'Shalach Acharav Sheli'ach' - to teach us that even though both
of them are Sheluchim, the second Shelichus has the power to negate the
(c) He needed to teach us the Seifa 'Im mi'she'Higi'ah Get le'Yadah, Shuv
Eino Yachol Le'vatlah' - even in a case where he had made every effort to
cancel the Get before it reached her hand, in which case we might have said
that, due to the revelation that he really had intended to cancel it, when
he does informs her of the cancellation, it should take effect
2. ... 'Adam Hu Eitzel Ishto' - that even if he went straight to his wife
(and not to the Sheli'ach), he is still not pulling her leg.
3. ... 'O she'Shalach Etzlah Sheli'ach' - that even then, when he might not
really care so much for the Sheli'ach's time and effort, he still means it
seriously, and is not pulling her leg.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa differentiates between the Lashon 'Bateil Hu'
and 'I Efshi Bo' on the one hand, and 'Pasul Hu' and 'Eino Get' on the
other. The former pair is considered a valid cancellation - because both
Leshonos imply the future tense (pertaining to the Shelichus), following the
regular cancellation process; whereas the latter pair are not - because both
Leshonos imply that he is coming to declare the Get invalid (when really, it
is perfectly Kasher), rather than the Shelichus.
(b) Rabah bar Avuhah says that if, after receiving a gift, the recipient
declares 'Matanah Zu Mevuteles', 'Tibatel' or 'I Efshi Bah', the gift
stands - because these Leshonos imply the future tense, and, having acquired
the gift, it is not possible to become rid of it without a Kinyan; whereas
if he says 'Beteilah Hi', the gift is indeed canceled - because it implies
the past tense, and what he is saying is that he did not accept it in the
(c) In the latter case, despite the fact that the gift is now in his domain,
the gift is canceled, because, since 'Beteilah Hi' implies the past tense -
we apply the principle that (as far as money matters are concerned) 'Hoda'as
Ba'al-Din ke'Me'ah Eidim Dami', and no witnesses are required.
(d) Abaye reconciles this apparent discrepancy (that by Get, 'Bateil Hu'
implies the future, whereas by Matanah, 'Beteilah Hi' implies the past) - by
pointing out that 'Bateil Hu' really has a dual meaning; it can mean both
the past and the future, in which case we take for granted that whoever uses
the Lashon, intends to use it in a way that is effective.
(a) Abaye say that a Sheli'ach Matanah is like a Sheli'ach ha'Get - with
regard to 'Holech La'av ki'Z'chi' (meaning that, in spite of the principle
'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', if someone says to his Sheli'ach 'Holech
Matanah li'P'loni', the recipient has not yet acquired it, and the donor is
able to retract).
(b) Ravina found Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak leaning on the door-post,
seemingly flummoxed by the She'eilah whether 'Bateil' will be effective
without adding 'Hu'. The outcome of this She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.
(c) The difference between the Lashon 'Get Zeh Lo Yo'il', 'Lo Yatir' ... 'Lo
Yegaresh', 'Yehei Cheres', 'Yehei ke'Cheres' on the one hand, and 'Get Zeh
Eino Mo'il', 'Eino Matir' ... 'Eino Megaresh', 'Cheres Hu', 'ke'Cheres Hu'
is - that the former are all effective (because they imply the future),
whereas the latter are not (because they imply the past).
(d) Ravina asked Rav Acha Brei de'Rava (or the latter asked Rav Ashi) what
the Din will be if he said 'Harei Hu Cheres'. He replied with a
straightforward proof from Hekdesh - where 'Harei Hu Hekdesh' is effective
(as it also is by Hefker), proving that 'Harei Zeh' always implies the
(a) We ask whether, once the husband has canceled the Get, he is permitted
to use it at a later stage. The basis of the She'eilah is - whether he
cancels the Shelichus or the Get (which is possible as long as it has not
been sent - see Tosfos DH 'Rav Sheishes').
(b) Rav Nachman permits him to do so. Rav Sheishes - forbids it.
(c) We rule - like Rav Nachman.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that if a man gives a woman money betrothing her
after thirty days, and then cancels the Kidushin - the Kidushin is canceled.
(b) Despite our ruling like Rebbi Yochanan in this case, and the Kidushin is
Bateil, we nevertheless rule like Rebbi Nachman, who maintains that the Get
is not Bateil - because in the case of Kidushin, it is not the money that
he cancels (which in fact, can be used again for the same purpose), only the
Kidushin, which is no more than words. Likewise here, he is canceling the
Shelichus, and not the Get (which, like the money, can be used again).
(a) Before Raban Gamliel's Takanah, it was possible to cancel the Get in
front of a Beis-Din. According to Rav Nachman, the Beis-Din here may
comprise two people - whereas Rav Sheishes requires three.
(b) Rav Nachman maintains here that two people are also considered a
Beis-Din - because they are not issuing rulings, only imparting information,
whereas elsewhere, where they are issuing rulings, and a majority opinion is
generally sought, three are required.