(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 76

GITIN 76 - This Daf has been sponsored by Martin Fogel of Carlsbad, California in memory of his father, Yaakov ben Shlomo Fogel, whose Yahrzeit is 20 Nisan.



(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that if the husband stipulated 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Teshamshi es Aba Sh'tei Shanim ve'al-M'nas she'Teniki es B'ni Sh'tei Shanim, Harei Zeh Get' - because he failed to make a T'nai Kaful.

(b) The reason of the Chachamim, who consider the T'nai to be valid is - because they do not require a T'nai Kaful.

(c) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Ein Lecha T'nai bi'Kesuvim she'Eino Kaful', assuming that he is referring to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir he means to say - that we cannot learn the Dinim of T'nai (including that of T'nai Kaful) from the T'nai B'nei Gad u'B'nei Reuven, since they are repeated on many occasions in T'nach, in which case we will apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin'.
2. ... the Chachamim he means - that since, wherever the Pasuk mentions T'nai, it always cites a T'nai Kaful, we can extrapolate from there that a T'nai is only valid if it is a T'nai Kaful.
(d) According to the latter explanation, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel does not consider it a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad' - because each instance where the Pasuk mentions T'nai Kaful is needed (as the Sugya in Kidushin explains).
(a) In another Beraisa which deals with the same case as the previous one, Rebbi Meir says 'Eino Get', whereas, according to the Chachamim - she can claim that if her husband will produce his father or his son, she will be quite happy to fulfill her side of the condition.

(b) We reconcile the two (seemingly)contradictory opinions of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir - by establishing the first Beraisa when he *did not* make a T'nai Kaful (in which case, the T'nai is Bateil and the Ma'aseh effective), and the second one when he *did* (in which case the T'nai is effective).
2. ... the Chachamim - by equating the Chachamim in the second Beraisa with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says in our Mishnah that should the failure to fulfill the T'nai not lie with the woman, the Get takes effect, despite the fact that it was not fulfilled.
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that if someone says in front of two witnesses 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Teshamshi es Aba Sh'tei Shanim' and then, in front of two other witnesses ' ... al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz' - and then, he handed his wife the Get, 'Lo Bitel Divrei ha'Acharon es ha'Rishon'.

(b) The Halachah is - that she may choose whichever condition she wishes to fulfill. The reason for this is - because he did not in any way indicate that the second condition was meant either to add to the first one or to negate it.

(c) The latter T'nai would negate the former one if he were to have first stipulated that she must give him two hundred Zuz, and then changed it to three hundred (because he did not indicate that the second condition was meant to add to the first one [to obligate her to give him five hundred], and it would be senseless to give her a choice of two or three hundred).

(a) The Tana adds 've'Ein Echad min ha'Rishonim ve'Echad min ha'Acharonim Mitztarfin'. This cannot possibly refer to the second of the two cases of the Beraisa - because there, we just explained that the first condition has been negated.

(b) In that case, it must refer to the first. It is not so obvious that one witness from each group cannot combine (seeing as they are testifying on two different conditions, only of which she is obligated to observe) - because there is room to believe that, since both sets of witnesses come to establish that there was a condition, they should be able to combine.

(a) In the case cited by the Tana of our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech im Lo Ba'si mi'Ka'n ad Sheloshim Yom, ve'Hayah Holech ...
1. ... mi'Yehudah le'Galil, Higi'a le'Antipras ve'Chazar (Miyad), Bitel Tena'o' - Antipras appears to be in the south of the Galil, close to the border of Yehudah.
2. ... mi'Galil li'Yehudah, Higi'a li'K'far Usna'i ve'Chazar (Miyad), Bitel Tena'o' - K'far Usna'i appears to be in the north of Yehudah, close to the border of the Galil.
3. ... li'Medinas ha'Yam, ve'Higi'a le'Acco, Bitel Tena'o' - Acco appears to be just north of the northern border of Eretz Yisrael (in Chutz la'Aretz).
(b) In the above cases - it will make no difference if he subsequently leaves Yehudah (in the first case), Galil (in the second case) or Eretz Yisrael (in the third) for thirty days, because the moment he returned to his place of residence within the thirty days, the Get becomes Bateil.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if a man said 'Harei Zeh Gitech, Kol Z'man she'A'avor mi'Neged Panayich Sheloshim Yom' - then even if he traveled backwards and forwards a number of times (totaling thirty days), his wife is divorced.

(a) he Tana of a Beraisa places ...
1. ... Antipras - in Yehudah.
2. ... K'far Usna'i - in the Galil.
(b) Abaye resolves the apparent contradiction between our Mishnah (which seems to place Antipras in Galil and K'far Usna'i in Yehudah) and the Beraisa, which explicitly places the former in Yehudah and the latter in the Galil), by explaining with regard to our Mishnah, 'T'rei Tena'i ka'Amar Lah' - meaning that the man actually made a dual condition with his wife: namely, that if he would travel to the Galil (even immediately) or if he would remain on the journey for thirty days (even in Yehudah [vice-versa with regard to K'far Usna'i]), the Get would not take effect. And now that he remained in Yehudah, added to the fact that he did not remain thirty days on the journey, the condition had been fulfilled and she was divorced.

(c) Regarding the area north of Antipras and south of K'far Usna'i, he rules 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' - because he had a Safek whether this belonged to Yehudah or the Galil.

(d) By ...

1. ... 'Megureshes' - he meant that she is Pasul to marry a Kohen.
2. ... 'Einah Megureshes' - that she is not permitted to re-marry with that Get.



(a) Rav Safra informs us how the Rabbanan of Eretz Yisrael would take leave - of the Rabbanan of Chutz la'Aretz who had come to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, in Acco.

(b) Specifically in Acco - because Acco was on the northern border of Eretz Yisrael, and a ben Eretz Yisrael is prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael.

(c) Abaye reconciles our Mishnah (which seems to place Acco in Chutz la'Aretz), with the testimony of Rav Safra (which specifically places it in Eretz Yisrael) - by establishing our Mishnah by a dual condition, in exactly the same way as he explained the two previous sections of the Mishnah.

(a) In the case in our Mishnah when the husband stipulated that the Get should take effect if he stayed away from her ('Im A'avor mi'Neged Panayich') for thirty days, why is the Get valid, seeing as he returned within thirty days - because, according to Rav Huna, 'mi'Neged Panayich' means, not from his wife's presence, but from Tashmish (because 'Panayich', really means 'Panim shel Matah', and this is a more refined expression).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Mishnah ('Panayich') literally - and what the husband meant was that he would not be Misyached (seclude himself) with her, which he was not.

(c) It is not a Get Yashan, according to Rebbi Yochanan, because the Din of Get Yashan applies specifically when Yichud took place between the time that the husband wrote the Get and the time he handed it over. Rabah bar Rav Huna, citing his father in the name of Rav, explains that we do not even suspect that, when he returned, he made up with his wife, and secluded himself with her (in which case it would be a Get Yashan) - because the Tana speaks when the husband added that he would believe his wife implicitly, should she declare that this did not happen.

(d) The Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(a) There are others who cite Rabah bar Rav Huna, who cites his father in the name of Rav (who explains that the Tana speaks when the husband believed his wife) with regard to the forthcoming Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Meis ... Harei Zeh Get', to answer the Kashya why we are not afraid that he may have made up with her. If he said this on ...
1. ... the Mishnah, then we would extrapolate that he certainly said it on the Beraisa - because if we suspect that he made up with his wife even when he did not return, then we should certainly suspect that he made up with her when he did.
2. ... the Beraisa, we would extrapolate that he would not have said it on the Mishnah - because we are only afraid that he may have made up with his wife when he returned, but not when he did not.
(b) Consequently, Rabah bar Rav Huna, who cites his father in the name of Rav will not need to establish the Mishnah in the way that he does the Beraisa.
(a) We just discussed our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Meis be'Toch Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get'. In the Reisha, where he did not say 'me'Achshav', the Tana rules 'Eino Get' - because the Lashon implies that the Get is to take effect in twelve months, by which time he is no longer alive, and ('Ein Get le'Achar Misah', in which case) she is obligated to perform Yibum.

(b) If he said ...

1. ... 'Im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti', and they wrote the Get within twelve months and handed it to her after twelve months - the Get will not be valid.
2. ... 'Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti, Im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh', according to the Tana Kama - it will not be valid either.
(c) In the latter case - Rebbi Yossi says 'ka'Zeh Get' (because, seeing as he switched the (regular) order as stated in the Reisha, he must have meant 'Kisvu Get *Miyad* u'T'nu Im Lo Ba'si').

(d) Even if, when he failed to return within twelve months, they wrote the Get and handed it to his wife after twelve months, the Get will not be valid, in the event that her husband died before she received it. In a case where nobody knows whether the Get preceded her husband's death or vice-versa, the Din will be 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes'.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa (with regard to 'Im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti') 'Raboseinu Hitiruhah Linasei'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ascribes the title 'Raboseinu' to the Beis-Din that permitted Nochri oil. This was the Beis-Din of - Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah (the Amora), son of Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi.

(b) Raboseinu hold - like Rebbi Yossi, who holds 'Zemano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav' (as we discussed earlier).

(c) Rebbi Aba the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quoting Rebbi Yochanan said - that this was only the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah, and that his contemporaries did not agree with him.

(d) 'Kol Si'aso' means - all the members of his Beis-ha'Medrash, 'Kol Sha'ato' - means as long as he lived (or all his contemporaries).

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked that old man whether Raboseinu permitted her to marry immediately or only after twelve months. The first side of the She'eilah means - since we know for sure that her husband will not come during the stipulated twelve-month period, she is permitted to marry immediately.

(b) Rebbi Elazar - could indeed have posed exactly the same She'eilah with regard to our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Meis be'Toch Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get'.

(c) The reason that he posed it on the Beraisa of Raboseinu )rather than on the Mishnah) is - because he was a member of Rebbi Yehudah's Beis-Din who permitted the woman to marry.

Next daf


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