(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 34

GITIN 34 & 35 - The Dafim have been sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri Turkel. May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha, health and fulfillment, and may they see all of their children and grandchildren follow them in the ways of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!



(a) When minors come to divide their father's property, to ensure that they get a fair deal - Beis-Din appoint an agent for each heir, who serves the interest of his 'client'.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel permits the children to revoke the agents' division when they grow up. Rav Nachman himself disagrees - because 'im-Kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh?'

(c) Rav Nachman's previous ruled like Rebbi, who validates the husband's cancellation of the Sheli'ach of the Get even not in his presence, thereby overturning Raban Gamliel's Takanah - because he confines 'im-Kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh' to money matters, where we apply the principle 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'. It will not apply to matters of Isur, such as negating the cancellation of a Get, which permits a married woman to remarry.

(a) When Gidul bar Re'ila'i's Sheli'ach arrived with her Get - his wife was weaving and didn't want to be disturbed.

(b) When she told the Sheli'ach to 'go now and come back tomorrow' - he took the Get back to Gidul bar Re'ila'i'.

(c) When the Sheli'ach returned with the Get, Gidul bar Re'ila'i, who had changed his mind about divorcing his wife - exclaimed 'Baruch ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv!'

(a) According to Abaye, 'Baruch ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' did not constitute Bitul (and the Sheli'ach was still authorized to take the Get to his wife). According to Rava, it did.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is whether - 'Yesh Giluy Da'ata be'Gita' (the husband's indication that he wishes to cancel the Shelichus will suffice, and this is the opinion of Rava), or not (Abaye).

(a) Rava proved his opinion from an incident with Rav Sheishes, who in the case when the man whom he had forced to write a Get for his wife, declared that Rav Sheishes had ordered the Get to be canceled, ruled - that he had to write a new Get, because his cancellation of the first Get was effective.

(b) Abaye refutes Rava's proof - on the grounds that according to the facts that we have, the husband did not indicate that *he* wished the Get to be canceled, only that Rav Sheishes did, and who appointed Rav Sheishes in charge of all the Gitin?

(c) So what really happened there was - that the husband first expressed his own wish to cancel the Get, and then added that this was what Rav Sheishes had said, because, having already received one beating, he was afraid of what they would do to him for rescinding Rav Sheishes decision.

(a) Abaye proves his point from an incident with Rav Yehudah, who was having trouble with Rebbi Yirmiyah Bira'ah's son-in-law. Twice, after Rav Yehudah had forced him to write a Get for his wife - he canceled it.

(b) Rav Yehudah then instructed the witnesses - to place a piece of cut vegetable in their ears so as not to hear any subsequent Bitul that Rebbi Yirmiyah Bira'ah's son-in-law may make.

(c) Abaye proves his opinion from here - from the fact that Rebbi Yirmiyah Bira'ah's son-in-law was running after the witnesses, a clear case of Giluy Da'ata be'Gita, yet, as long as the witnesses did not hear his cancellation, it was not valid.

(d) Rava repudiated Abaye's proof from here, on the grounds that, as far as the witnesses are concerned, it may well be that he had changed his mind and now wanted them to write the Get as quickly as possible, to take him out of his misery.

(a) We already learned the case of the man who was prevented from returning within thirty days to prevent the Get he had given his wife from being valid, because he could not find the river- crossing. Abaye learns from Shmuel, who ruled there 'Lo Sh'mei Meisaya' - that 'Giluy Da'ata be'Gita La'av Milsa Hi'.

(b) Rava refutes Abaye's proof - on the grounds that, there it was not a matter of canceling the Get, but rather of fulfilling his condition, and Shmuel was coming to teach us that Giluy Da'as is not good enough to fulfill a condition, but that he must actually fulfill it.

(c) We cite a case of a man who gave his betrothed a Get stipulating that it would be valid if he did not marry her within thirty days. Thirty days passed - and although he claimed that he was busy with the preparations for the wedding, the Get was valid.

(d) The Get was valid, despite the fact that ...

1. ... he was an O'nes - because 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin'.
2. ... he revealed his intention to marry her, only he was prevented from doing so - because we rule 'Ein Giluy Da'ata be'Gitin', like Abaye.
(a) In the Machlokes between Rav Nachman and ...
1. ... Rav Sheishes regarding whether two are needed to cancel a Get or three - we rule that two will suffice, like Rav Nachman.
2. ... Rebbi Aba regarding whether we follow the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding 'Bitlo Mevutal' and like Rebbi regarding 'Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo Bifnei Zeh' or whether we follow the opinion of Rebbi in both points - we adopt the latter view, like Rav Nachman.
(b) And in the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava with regard to Giluy Da'as be'Gitin - this is one of the six cases ('Ya'al Ke'Gam') where we rule like Abaye, who says 'Ein Giluy Da'as be'Gitin'.

(c) Abaye was called 'Nachmeini' - because he was born an orphan (his father died after conceiving him, and his mother when he was born. Abaye is the acronym of "Asher Becha Yerucham Yasom"), and Rabah bar Nachmeini brought him up and taught him Torah, nicknaming him after his own father.




(a) Originally they would write in the Get the names of the man and the woman as they were known in the place of writing. Raban Gamliel ha'Zakein instituted - that they write in the Get all the names by which he is known, both in the town where the Get is written and in the town where they are domicile.

(b) His reason for instituting this Takanah - was to prevent people from spreading false rumors that the children from her husband are Mamzeirim because, seeing as the name on the divorce is not her husband's (or her) name, he had not divorced her.

(c) Names of which the public is unaware are not included in the Takanah.

(d) When Rebbi Aba heard this from Rav Ashi, he told him - that he was in good company, because Rebbi Mari and Rebbi Elazar conformed with his opinion.

(a) The Beraisa too, supports Rav Ashi. After informing us of the obligation to insert both the name by which the man is known in Yehudah, and that by which he is known the Galil, in whichever of the two towns the Get is written the Tana added - that if he moved to a town where they are unaware of any of their names and decides to divorce his wife there, then it is unnecessary to insert them in the Get.

(b) If one of the names by which he is known is in either town was inadvertently omitted - the Get is invalid.

(a) When a widow claims her Kesuvah from the Yesomim, she is obligated to swear - that she has not yet received any of it.

(b) When Raban Gamliel ha'Zakein saw that the Batei-Dinim refrained from enforcing it (with the result that the woman forfeited her Kesuvah) - he instituted that the Yesomim may attach the Shevu'ah to a Neder (of their choice, such as 'Konem Miynei Peiros Alai, Im Neheneisi mi'Kesuvasi').

(c) They did that - because they saw how the widows were swearing that they had not received their Kesuvos even when they had (for reasons which will be explained later). Raban Gamliel's Takanah achieved - that they would be bound by the Neder, should they have received their Kesuvah (whole or in part), thereby avoiding swearing falsely.

(d) Raban Gamliel ha'Zakein instituted the Takanah of signing on a Get.

11) Hillel instituted a P'ruzbul (which will be explained later in the Sugya).


(a) Anyone who claims from Yesomim - is obligated to swear that he did not receive payment from their father.

(b) The Tana nevertheless found it necessary to specifically mention the Almanah who claims her Kesuvah - because we may otherwise have absolved her from this Shevu'ah, because of 'China' (that the men should favor in the eyes of women i.e. to encourage them to marry and not worry about the impediments that will later prevent them from receiving their Kesuvah).

Next daf


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