ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 77
GITIN 77-79 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement
Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela Turkel, Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer,
(a) Abaye says that in a case where a man dies at night after saying ...
1. ... 'le'che'she'Teitzei Chamah mi'Narteikah' - the Get is invalid,
because this Lashon implies that the Get is to take effect only when the sun
comes out in the morning (and 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah).
(b) The same will apply to 'le'che'she'Lo Avo le'Achar Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh'
and 'al-M'nas she'Lo Avo le'Achar Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh'. The Machlokes
between the Tana of our Mishnah and Raboseinu of the Beraisa is confined to
a case of 'Im Teitzei ha'Chamah' (or 'Im Meisi') - whether we hold like
Rebbi Yossi (who holds 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach [as if he had said
'me'Achshav'] - Raboseinu) or not (the Tana of our Mishnah).
2. ... 'al-M'nas she'Teitzei Chamah mi'Narteikah' - the Get is effective
immediately, because of Rav Huna Amar Rav, who said 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas
ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami'.
(a) 'Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti Im Lo Ba'asi mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sh'teim-Esrei
Chodesh, Kasvu be'Soch Sh'neim-Esrei Chodesh, ve'Nasnu le'Achar Sh'neim-Asar
Chodesh ... Rebbi Yossi Omer, ka'Zeh Get'. Rav Yeimar asked Rav Ashi
whether Rebbi Yossi argues on principle, because he holds that we ignore any
T'nai by Gitin. The ramifications of this contention are - that he even
argues in the Reisha (when the husband said 'Im Lo Ba'asi mi'Ka'an ve'Ad
Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Kasvu be'Soch Sh'neim-Esrei Chodesh Kisvu u'T'nu Get
(b) Rav Ashi answered him - that Rebbi Yossi agrees with the Tana Kama on
principle, and that he only argues in the Seifa where the husband switched
the order (as we explained earlier).
(c) The Rabbanan hold - that either way, the Get is not valid (because the
husband meant to write the Get and hand it over only after twelve months).
(a) If he says 'Harei Zeh Gitech Im Lo Ba'asi ad le'Achar
***** Hadran Alach 'Mi she'Achzo' *****
1. ... Shavu'a Zu' - he must have returned within twelve months of the end
of the seven-year cycle.
(b) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Asi, Rebbi Yochanan) what the time
period 'le'Achar ha'Shabbos' would constitute. He answered him - that
Sunday, Monday and Tuesday belong to the previous week; Wednesday, Thursday
and Friday to the following week.
2. ... Shanah Zu' - he must have returned by one month.
3. ... Chodesh' - within a week.
(c) According to Rebbi, 'le'Achar ha'Regel' constitutes thirty days. When
Rebbi Chiya Darshened this in the name of Rebbi, they all praised him, but
when he Darshened it in the name of the Rabbanan, they remained silent -
because they considered Rebbi's statement in this instance not to be
Halachah. Consequently, they praised Rebbi Chiya when he cited it in the
name of Rebbi who, after all, is no more than an individual, and people
would not consider it Halachah, and remained silent when he cited the
Rabbanan, which would render it a Halachic ruling.
***** Perek ha'Zorek *****
(a) If a husband throws a Get to his wife assuming that she is ...
1. ... in her own house or Chatzer - she is divorced.
(b) In the latter case, even he throws the Get on to the bed that they are
sharing, she will not be divorced.
2. ... in his house or Chatzer - she is not.
(c) If he tosses the Get into her lap or into her basket - she is divorced
(this will be discussed in more detail later).
(a) We learn from the phrase "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" that a woman is divorced
even if her husband places the Get on her roof, or into her courtyard or
enclosure - from the fact that the Torah inverted the phrase (it should
otherwise have written "u've'Yadah Yitnenu", which would have restricted the
Kinyan to her hand).
(b) We learn the same with regard to a thief from the double expression "Im
Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah" used by the Pasuk - implying that he
will become liable for whatever happens to the article from that moment on,
and that he will have to pay double for having stolen it.
(c) Having taught us that one's Reshus is considered like one's hand with
regard to Kinyanim by ...
1. ... a Get, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it by a
thief - who does not acquire against his will like a woman acquiring her Get
(d) If a thief would not acquire an animal via the Kinyan of Chatzer, he
would acquire it by means of a Kinyan Meshichah. A Kinyan Chatzer is
possible without Meshichah - if the animal walked of its own accord into
one's Chatzer and the owner closed the gate.
2. ... a thief, the Torah still needs to repeat it by a Get - because the
former might have been due to the fact that he sinned and is subject to a
fine, which the latter is not.
(a) Considering that a husband acquires rights in his wife's property when
he marries her, she can only become divorced by his placing a Get in her
Chatzer, Rebbi Elazar explains - if he withdrew from his rights prior to
giving her the Get.
(b) The Beraisa states that if a partner writes out a document on which he
states that he withdraws from his share in a field, this does not give the
remaining partner full ownership of the field - because one cannot withdraw
from ownership (or from rights of ownership) without a Kinyan.
(c) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai therefore explains that the Get will only be valid -
if the husband wrote the document of withdrawal during the period of
betrothal (since at that stage, a man does not yet acquire rights in his
1. Rav Kahana says that one has the right to withdraw from property that
comes from another source - by which he means a source other than an
inheritance (which the Torah automatically places in his Reshus [and from
which he cannot withdraw]).
(b) When Rava said 'K'gon Zu' - he is referring to the Takanah of Mezonos
(Chazal's obligation of a man to feed his wife, in return for which she is
obligated to work).
2. ... Rava says - that one has the right to decline to accept a Takanas
Chachamim that is purely for one's benefit.
(c) Rav Huna Amar Rav said there - 'Yecholah Ishah she'Tomar le'Ba'alah Eini
Nizones ve'Eini Osah'.
(a) Based on the clear-cut Din of 'Yadah', Rava proves that it is not
necessary to establish the Din of Chatzer when he withdrew from his rights -
because however the woman acquires her Get via her Yad (over which her
husband also has rights - as we will explain shortly), she will acquire it
via her Chatzer too.
(b) In fact, the woman acquires her Get, by both Yad and Chatzer - due to
the principle 'Gitah ve'Yadah Ba'in ke'Echad' (she obtains her own Yad
simultaneously with the Get, thereby enabling the Kinyan to take place).
(c) Ravina refutes Rava's proof from the Yad of a woman - on the grounds
that unlike her Chatzer, her husband does not actually acquire her hand.
(d) Rav Ashi counters that Rava's proof is not really from the Yad of a
woman, but from that of an Eved Cana'ani - according to the Tana who holds
that he is able to receive his own Get Shichrur with his own hand (and an
Eved's hand is certainly owned by his master). The only reason that he could
possibly go free in this way, is by means of the principle 'Gito ve'Yado
Ba'in ke'Echad', and if that applies to the Yad of an Eved Cana'ani, it will
also apply to a woman's Chatzer.
(a) The problem in the case of that Shechiv-Mera who wrote a Get for his
wife just before Shabbos came in and then, on Shabbos, he took a turn for
the worse was - how his wife would be able to acquire it before he died (in
order to exempt her from Yibum), seeing as a Get is Muktzah on Shabbos.
(b) Based on the Mishnah in Bava Basra 'Na'al Gadar u'Paratz Kol-Shehu Harei
Zu Chazakah' - Rava advised him to give the room in which the Get was
located to his wife, which she would acquire by merely locking the door
(because one can acquire Metaltelin together with Karka).
(c) Rav Ilish caused Rava to become embarrassed - by commenting that
whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband (so how would her locking
the door make any difference?)
(d) Rava subsequently discovered - that the couple were only betrothed but
not yet married, in which case, the woman still had her own Yad.
(a) Rava subsequently reversed his previous ruling - by equating a married
woman with a betrothed one in this regard, because of the principle 'Gitah
ve'Yadah Ba'in ke'Echad'.
(b) Indeed, we quoted him earlier as having said this - but it was with
regard to this episode that he said it.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the woman is in her house, and her
husband throws her a Get, she is divorced. Ula takes this literally to mean
that she must be standing in or next to her house when her husband gives her
the Get (see Tosfos DH 've'Hu'). According to Rebbi Oshaya - it means that
wherever she is, it is as if she was standing in her Chatzer.
(b) It is not necessary for her to actually be in the Chatzer - because it
is sufficient that the Chatzer is guarded with her knowledge.
(c) We initially base their Machlokes over - whether the Din of 'Chatzer' is
derived from 'Yad' (which is always at her side) or from Shelichus (which is
generally not in her presence).
(a) We conclude that both learn Chatzer from Yad. Rebbi Oshaya counters
Ula's proof that, like her Yad, her Chatzer must be close - because in that
case, we may as well go further and say that, like her Yad, her Chatzer must
be stuck to her.
(b) So Rebbi Oshaya compares Chatzer to Yad - inasmuch as they are both
guarded with her knowledge.
(a) In the case where a man threw his wife a Get, which fell on a large
block of wood, Rav Yosef ruled - that if it was more than four by four Amos,
it would be considered a different Reshus and she would not be divorced, but
if it was less than that, then she would.
(b) This cannot be speaking when the block of wood was in her Chatzer -
because if it was, what difference would the size of the block make?
(c) We therefore establish it when it was in *his* Chatzer. The reason that
she will not be divorced if the block of wood was more than four by four
Amos is - because we are speaking when he lent her the place in his Chatzer
where the Get fell, and we work on the assumption that (unless he
specifically says to the contrary), a person lends one location, and not
(d) The two instances in which she would not be divorced even if the block
of wood was less than four by four Amos are - if it was more than ten
Tefachim tall, or if it was known by a certain name (in which case it would
be too important to be Bateil).