(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 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"H.



(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).
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'.
(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).
(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 le'Ishti').

(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
1. ... Shavu'a Zu' - he must have returned within twelve months of the end of the seven-year cycle.
2. ... Shanah Zu' - he must have returned by one month.
3. ... Chodesh' - within a week.
(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.

(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.

***** Hadran Alach 'Mi she'Achzo' *****

***** 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.
2. ... in his house or Chatzer - she is not.
(b) In the latter case, even he throws the Get on to the bed that they are sharing, she will not be divorced.

(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 does.
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.
(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.
(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 wife's property).

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]).
2. ... Rava says - that one has the right to decline to accept a Takanas Chachamim that is purely for one's benefit.
(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).

(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 two.

(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).

Next daf


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